06-12-2025: Two 15-year-olds – Noah Jones and Macy Neyland – have filed a constitutional challenge in Australia’s High Court against the federal government’s proposed social media ban for under 16s. The case is backed by the Digital Freedom Project, led by John Ruddick who is a Libertarian Party member of the New South Wales (NSW) parliament. Ruddick says that the age ban is “disproportionate” and would “trespass either directly or indirectly upon the rights of every Australian”.[1] On the 10th of December, unless the High Court challenge leads to an injunction, all those 15 years and under will be effectively banned, and everyone else will have to provide identification documents and possibly a Digital ID or facial recognition images just to use social media. However, a Senate committee which examined the bill for the social media ban recommended that the beginning of the legislation be delayed until the 10th of June 2026, to allow for further investigation of the impacts.
Right to political communication
The High Court case will argue that the social media ban effectively eliminates the right of teenagers to political communication. In Australia there is no constitutional guarantee of a right to free speech as exists in the United States of America (US), for example. The right to free speech is only implied and is effectively at the discretion of the courts to decide. United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet has introduced a Bill to federal parliament to repeal the Social Media Ban as soon as it is enacted. The proposed social media ban law will penalise platforms who do not take “reasonable steps” to prevent access to under 16s with fines up to a staggering $50 million. It currently applies to: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick and Reddit.[2] Platforms that are currently exempt are: Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp, YouTube Kids and LinkedIn. However, Communications Minister Annika Wells and “E-Safety” Commissioner Julie Inman Grant have stated that they will monitor migratory patterns to other platforms and restrict more if necessary.[3]
There are some reports which say that BlueSky is exempt, but other reports say that BlueSky is “under consideration” to see how it will comply. It is suspected that Inman Grant, who was booted from the former Twitter by new owner Elon Musk for trying to censor content, will exempt the liberal BlueSky alternative to X.[4] The notion that any of the government’s moves are intended to protect children from online harm is patently absurd. The government is not doing anything to investigate or prosecute some predators who can potentially use social media for access to children. It will cause significant harm to children, by blocking their communication with their friends, and social, cultural and sporting groups. Smart teenagers may also be able to get around the ban by using their technological skills.
Surveillance and Censorship
The real reason for the social media ban is to enhance surveillance of everyone and to increase censorship by the state itself, or by intimidation. If this goes ahead as planned, people of all ages will be able to be immediately identified by the state for comments they make which criticises government policy or positions. The state will be able to arrest those who make comments which the government views as an obstacle to their agenda. It does not get more dystopian than this. But this is not all. On the 27th of December, almost all internet searches will require ID verification (whether this is digital or otherwise is currently unclear) before it can be completed. If a search engine provider fails to check for your ID, they face a 50 million dollar fine for every “breach” of the law. Identification will effectively be needed to use the internet – no more anonymous searches. What is more, this is happening through industry codes which are adjusted through regulations. So even considering the distorted way in which parliamentarians decide on laws, in this case they will not even be able to vote against it.[5]
25 years into the 21st century, capitalism can no longer tolerate the civil and democratic rights which it once championed with its rise over feudal monarchs 500 years ago. The longer the capitalist state exists, the more repressive it must be against the working class, which is destined to rise to power. The virtual abolition of privacy is a sure sign that the machine mainstream politicians cannot tolerate anonymous criticism of their acts, which social media had previously enabled. In fact, it is also a sign that the aging state is undermined by any criticism of its nefarious actions. Ironically, the open repression of banning social media and tracking all citizens for the content they search for on the internet is far, far worse than anything which is equivocal to that occurring in Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK (“North Korea”). These “authoritarian” governments actually in many cases allow much more free speech and much more public and political discussion and debate about societal issues.
The astonishing element is that the so-called “Left” are almost entirely silent in the face of a real authoritarianism which is without precedent. This self-described “Left” merged with the state during the fraudulent “Covid pandemic” of 2020-2022, and now after acting detached from it since, have muted their megaphones once again. Only some smaller sections of those who resisted and mobilised against draconian lockdowns and vaccine mandates are speaking out and taking action over oppression which may even make Genghis Khan blush, were he alive today. It is said that half of the country is unaware of the Australian government’s moves, and the other half are mortally horrified. The right to free speech, the right to political communication, the right to privacy, to not be tracked and censored by the state are elementary rights which must be defended. The High Court challenge to the social media ban must be supported, but it is unlikely to succeed without a supporting mass campaign of defiance. Socialists must demand: No to surveillance! No to censorship! For free speech!
Workers League
E: workersleague@protonmail.com
[1] www.ia.acs.org.au/article/2025/under-16s-social-media-ban-faces-high-court-challenge.html (03-12-2025)
[2] www.wired-parents.com/australia-teens-challenge-social-media-ban/ (03-12-2025)
[3] www.9news.com.au/national/social-media-ban-full-list-of-sites-apps-exemptions-australia (03-12-2025)
[4] www.x.com/search?q=bluesky%20and%20exempt&src=typed_query (03-12-2025)
[5] www.seemorerocks.substack.com/p/come-december-27-every-internet-search (03-12-2025)
Image: http://www.techi.com
Red Fire 
One thought on “Australia: High Court Challenge to Government Youth Social Media Ban”