The nation's top court is being asked whether limiting children's political engagement outweighs the harm done by social media platforms.
A two-day hearing challenging the world-first social media ban began on Tuesday.
Speaking outside the court, Noah Jones said young people should be able to share their views online, arguing that otherwise they would be "spectators in their own world".
"They shouldn't be shut out," he said.
He is a founding member of The Digital Freedom Project, which launched the challenge in the lead-up to the ban beginning in December 2025.
A second challenge emerged days later from US-based social platform Reddit, which argued the ban raised issues on privacy and political expression and inaccurately captured the forum-based platform in the ban.
Noah and another then-15-year-old, Macy Neyland, were originally named as plaintiffs in the case.
But the pair were removed over concerns they could be held liable for legal costs, should the case fail.
A hearing before all seven justices began at the High Court on Tuesday, when Reddit's barrister Perry Herzfeld SC argued the government's ban was "ill-targeted" and "over-broad".
He rejected Reddit's inclusion as a banned platform and highlighted four ways the online platform differed from others.
The firm argued it was text-based and did not feature endless feeds, while the focus was on the content, not the poster.
The ban bars children under the age of 16 from holding accounts on 10 digital platforms, including TikTok and Meta platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Snapchat, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, X and YouTube are also listed but Discord, Whatsapp and Messenger are not age-restricted.
Noah's mother, Renee Jones, said she was "fiercely afraid" of problems social media presented to young people, but the legislation passed by the government had missed the mark.
She said the ban would leave young people ignorant about safe online interaction and the dangers that came with being on social media.
"I want my son to grow up into a young Australian man who is resilient, who is responsible online, who can identify the dangers, and who is able to vet some of these things," she said.
The government has acknowledged concerns the bill might impinge on the rights of children, but it believes the ends justify the means.
Children's rights expert Noam Peleg said that would be the real test in the case.
"If the court reaffirms its own jurisprudence that Australians do enjoy the right to political communication and to political expression, then the question is whether this right extends to both children and to online platforms," Associate Professor Peleg told AAP.
"And if the answer is yes, then the question is whether the ban ... is a proportionate measure."
The effectiveness of the ban has been frequently called into question.
A report by eSafety Commissioner, which enforces the ban, in July said more than five million Australian accounts had been removed or deactivated.
But four in 10 children aged 10 to 15 remained active on social media three months after the ban began, down from 52 per cent.
Labor is meanwhile pushing to pass its new digital duty of care bill, which would place the legal responsibility on tech platforms to proactively secure their systems rather than relying on users to report harms.
The hearing continues.
16°C