A constitutional challenge is pending against the government’s under-16 social media account ban. The case argues that the law contravenes the implied freedom of political communication. It is likely to fail.

Two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, backed by the Digital Freedom Project advocacy group will argue that the law is unconstitutional because it impermissibly burdens 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.

The case will be heard by the high court in 2026.

The government will argue that the social media account ban is a practical and proportionate means of pursuing the legitimate purpose of protecting kids’ health and wellbeing; just like laws........

© The Guardian