Will Australia's social media ban survive a high court challenge from two teenagers? Most likely here's why | Luke Beck

"The case argues that the law contravenes the implied freedom of political communication. A law that has the effect of reducing the overall volume of political communication in Australia will be invalid unless it is proportionate to a legitimate purpose. This rule comes from the Australian constitution's requirement that parliamentarians be chosen by the people and the need for freedom to communicate about political matters for that choice to be meaningful."

"The social media account ban only slightly reduces the overall volume of political communication in Australia: 13, 14 and 15-year-olds were not engaging in much political communication before the ban on having social media accounts. Social media platforms have always said in their terms of service that under-13s cannot have accounts. And the law does not ban teenagers from using the internet or having online group chats, like some overreactions seem to suggest."

Two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, backed by the Digital Freedom Project, are challenging the government's under-16 social media account ban in the High Court in 2026. They argue the law contravenes the implied freedom of political communication because it reduces the overall volume of political communication. Australian constitutional law invalidates laws that reduce political communication unless they are proportionate to a legitimate purpose linked to meaningful electoral choice. The ban likely has only a small effect because 13–15-year-olds did not engage much in political communication and platforms already prohibit under-13 accounts. The law does not ban internet use or online group chats. The government will argue the ban is a practical, proportionate health and wellbeing measure, analogous to restrictions on films, games and tobacco plain packaging.

Read at www.theguardian.com