Newsletters
Two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, have filed a legal challenge at the High Court of Australia against the upcoming social media ban on users under 16, set to take effect in December 2025.
The teenagers argue that the law silences young voices in the digital world.
Passed in 2024, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act prohibits Australians under 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube.
The law requires the closure of existing accounts and blocks the creation of new ones for minors.
The government says the regulation aims to protect children from cyberbullying, harmful content, and online mental health risks. Non-compliant platforms face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32.16 million). Critics warn that the blanket ban could inadvertently cut young people off from educational content, social interaction, and public discourse.
Supporting the teens, the Digital Freedom Project argues that the law infringes on the constitutionally implied right to political communication.
Macy Neyland, speaking during a press release organized by the Digital Freedom Project, said, “Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow … we shouldn’t be silenced. It’s like Orwell’s book 1984, and that scares me.” She added that while adults expect young people to stay informed and engaged offline, the law would completely cut off their ability to express themselves online.
The plaintiffs propose alternatives to a blanket ban, such as content filters, age verification and parental controls, which would protect minors while maintaining their access to the digital public sphere.
The ban is set to take effect on Dec. 10, 2025, but the High Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications beyond Australia. If upheld, millions of under-16 users could be cut off from social media, restricting their participation in public discussions, access to news, and civic engagement.
The plaintiffs argue that balanced measures, including age verification, parental oversight, and content filtering, can ensure safety while preserving young people’s online expression.
The ruling could also set a global precedent for how governments balance child protection with digital freedoms. Approval of the law could lead to stricter age-based social media policies internationally, whereas a rejection could strengthen the case for more liberal access, protecting young people’s right to communicate and participate online.
This case represents more than a simple age restriction; it marks a critical moment in defining youth visibility in the digital public sphere in the 21st century.
8 min read
