## The Victory
In December 2025, two Australian teenagers—Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, both 11th-grade students from New South Wales—achieved a significant procedural victory when the High Court of Australia agreed to hear their constitutional challenge to the world's first nationwide social media ban for people under 16. The Court scheduled hearings for as early as February 2026, giving these young activists a platform to argue that the ban violates their constitutional freedoms of political communication and self-expression.
While this is not yet a final ruling, the High Court's decision to hear the case is itself a major win. Australia's High Court is highly selective about which cases it accepts, and the fact that it agreed to hear a challenge brought by teenagers signals that the Court takes their constitutional arguments seriously.
## What's at Stake
On December 10, 2025, Australia implemented a law requiring all social media platforms to delete accounts belonging to users under 16. The law applies to major platforms including Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat. Companies face fines of up to A$49.5 million (£25 million) for non-compliance, though parents and children face no penalties.
The government justified the ban as protecting children from online harms. However, Jones and Neyland argue that the law:
- Violates the implied constitutional freedom of political communication
- Restricts young people's ability to express themselves and participate in public discourse
- Unfairly targets "a considerable sphere of freedom" for 13-15-year-olds
- Treats young people as incapable of engaging with information and ideas
As one 13-year-old student pointedly asked: "If the reason is to protect kids from bad adults, why are the bad adults allowed to stay on the platform and I have to leave?"
## How Young People Are Fighting Back
Jones and Neyland's legal challenge represents the most formal and potentially powerful response to the ban, but it's part of a broader pattern of youth resistance:
**1. Constitutional Challenge:** By framing their case around constitutional freedoms rather than just policy disagreements, the teenagers have elevated the issue to fundamental rights.
**2. Strategic Timing:** Filing the challenge immediately after the law's passage, before it could become entrenched, shows sophisticated legal strategy.
**3. Public Advocacy:** Jones has been vocal about the ban's flaws, noting: "There's no newspaper big enough for me to learn what I can see in 10 minutes on Instagram." This highlights how the ban restricts access to information, not just entertainment.
**4. Demonstrating Maturity:** By bringing a constitutional challenge and articulating sophisticated arguments, the teenagers are proving they're capable of the very civic engagement the ban restricts.
## Why This Advances Rights and Equity
This case raises important questions about young people's rights:
**Age-Based Restrictions on Speech:** The challenge tests whether governments can impose blanket restrictions on speech based solely on age, without considering individual maturity or the nature of the speech.
**Access to Information:** In the digital age, social media is a primary source of news and information. Restricting access based on age creates an information divide.
**Political Participation:** Young people have legitimate interests in political issues—climate change, education policy, their own futures. Social media enables them to participate in these debates.
**Paternalism vs. Rights:** The case forces courts to balance parental and governmental authority against young people's independent rights.
**Practical Effectiveness:** As security expert Susan McLean notes, "It's a game of whack-a-mole. Governments should force companies to fix harmful algorithms, not ban apps." The challenge highlights that bans don't address root problems.
## The Broader Context
Experts have raised concerns about the ban's approach:
- **University of Sydney researcher Catherine Page Jeffery** notes that young people are migrating to alternative platforms like Yope, which parents may not be able to monitor.
- **RMIT University's Lisa Given** warns the ban "scatters kids onto new corners of the internet" rather than making them safer.
- **Security expert Susan McLean** argues that fixing harmful algorithms would be more effective than blanket bans.
These expert opinions support the teenagers' argument that the ban is both ineffective and overly broad.
## Actionable Takeaways
**For Young People:**
1. **Use the legal system:** Jones and Neyland show that age doesn't prevent you from bringing constitutional challenges. If you believe a law violates your rights, consult with civil liberties organizations about potential legal action.
2. **Frame issues as rights, not preferences:** The teenagers didn't just say they want to use social media—they argued it's a constitutional right. This elevates the debate.
3. **Demonstrate maturity:** By bringing a sophisticated legal challenge, they're proving they're capable of the civic engagement the ban restricts.
4. **Build public support:** Media coverage of their challenge has sparked broader debate about the ban's wisdom.
5. **Document harms:** Keep records of how age-based restrictions affect your ability to access information, participate in civic life, or exercise your rights.
**For Parents:**
1. **Support youth agency:** Rather than assuming young people need protection from all online content, consider supporting their right to access information with appropriate guidance.
2. **Focus on education:** Teaching critical media literacy is more effective than blanket bans.
3. **Recognize civic engagement:** Social media enables young people to participate in political and social movements relevant to their futures.
**For Advocates:**
1. **Take youth rights seriously:** This case shows that young people can be effective advocates for their own rights.
2. **Challenge age-based restrictions:** When governments impose blanket restrictions based on age, consider whether they violate constitutional protections.
3. **Use procedural victories:** Even getting a case heard by a high court is a win that validates the seriousness of the challenge.
4. **Highlight practical problems:** The teenagers' arguments are strengthened by expert testimony that the ban won't work as intended.
**For Policymakers:**
1. **Consider less restrictive alternatives:** Before imposing blanket bans, explore whether targeted regulations (like requiring platforms to fix harmful algorithms) would be more effective.
2. **Respect constitutional rights:** Age-based restrictions on speech must be carefully tailored to avoid violating constitutional protections.
3. **Listen to affected populations:** Young people have valuable insights into how policies will affect them.
## How This Helps You
If you're a young person in Australia, this case could protect your right to access information and participate in public discourse. Even if you're not in Australia, the case sets a precedent for challenging age-based restrictions on speech and information access.
For parents, this case highlights the importance of balancing protection with respect for young people's developing autonomy and civic engagement.
For democracy broadly, the case raises important questions about who gets to participate in public discourse. If young people are excluded from platforms where political debate occurs, how can they develop into informed citizens?
Most importantly, this case shows that young people don't have to wait until they're adults to stand up for their rights. Jones and Neyland, still in high school, have brought a constitutional challenge that the nation's highest court is taking seriously. That's empowering not just for them, but for young people everywhere who believe they have rights worth protecting.
The outcome of this case could influence how democracies worldwide think about young people's rights in the digital age. By bringing this challenge, two teenagers have sparked a conversation about whether protecting young people requires restricting their freedoms—or whether true protection comes from respecting their capacity for civic engagement while addressing genuine harms through more targeted means.