Social media age ban faces High Court challenge as government declares it will not be 'intimidated' by legal threats

Australia's social media age ban is being challenged in the High Court on the grounds it restricts young teens' implied right to freedom of political communication.

Advocacy group Digital Freedom Project announced on Wednesday that proceedings had been filed in the High Court challenging the looming ban on Australians aged under 16 from platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube.

The group claims the new laws, which are due to take effect on December 10, are "grossly excessive" and trespass on the "constitutional right of freedom of political communication".

Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, a Libertarian Party member of the New South Wales upper house, said the ban was "disproportionate" and outsourced parental responsibility to the government and "unelected bureaucrats".

"This ban is a direct assault on young people's right to freedom of political communication," he said in a statement.

Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, who are both 15 years old, are named as plaintiffs in the legal challenge as "representative" members of the cohort impacted by the ban.

Noah said young teens were the "true digital natives" who "want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world".

"We're disappointed in a lazy government that blanket bans under-16s rather than investing in programs to help kids be safe on social media," he said.

Macy said young people were the "voters of tomorrow" and should not be banned from expressing their views.

"If you personally think that kids shouldn't be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don't impose it on me and my peers," she said.

Communications Minister Anika Wells appeared to address the case in Question Time on Wednesday, saying the federal government remained "firm" in its commitment to implement the laws.

"Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese Labor government remains steadfastly on the side of parents, and not platforms," she said.

"We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by big tech on behalf of Australian parents. We stand firm."

The implied right under Australia's constitution emerged in the 1990s when the High Court held that citizens must be able to engage in political communication to inform their electoral choices.

The implied right to this freedom is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions.

A challenge to Australia's social media age laws on the basis that they restricted political communication was one of three legal options initially floated by lawyers acting for Google, which wrote to Ms Wells in July, urging the government not to include YouTube in the ban.

Google's lawyers claimed the age limit would prevent young adults under the age of 16 from having an account and being able to "contribute to political communication by posting videos on YouTube and by making comments on those videos".

Despite this legal threat, a special exemption previously carved out for YouTube was dropped, and the platform was deemed to be in the scope of the ban.

Although the Coalition voted in favour of the social media age limit a year ago, opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh on Wednesday expressed concern about the laws.

"The Coalition did support the ban, but ever since then … coming into this role, I've questioned whether it's going to work or not," she said.

"I think there's a high risk of failure on this."

Ms McIntosh said she was "not surprised" by the legal challenge to the ban.

Asked if she reserved the right to withdraw support for the social media ban if there were "unintended consequences" a month or so into the rollout, Ms McIntosh said: "of course".