this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
438 points (98.0% liked)

Australia

4924 readers
317 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lmdnw@lemmy.world 139 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it wrong and just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right. We need more illegal action against those who oppress legally.

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 86 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

Best example: the holocaust was legal, hiding Jews to save their lives was illegal.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 113 points 3 weeks ago (30 children)

Again, why does any country who is not Israel care at all about this? Does Australia have a military base there?

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] zakobjoa@lemmy.world 56 points 3 weeks ago

Cool ass lady

[–] SarahFromOz@lemmy.world 43 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Are we ok with this people?

[–] oneser@lemmy.zip 37 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Obviously, assuming this is the whole story, no. Are there any planned protests? Is there an open donation box for this person's legal fees open? Is there any other way in which the average person can help?

I'm getting sick of rhetorical questions about tyrannical governments, without any effort made to show people what they realistically can do to help.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is there an open donation box for this person’s legal fees open?

Just had a look and found this one: https://chuffed.org/project/173177-justice-for-palestine-legal-defence

Are there any planned protests?

Justice for Palestine Magan-Djin (indigenous name for Brisbane) has announced a 'weekend of action' against the laws on the 18th-19th of April: https://www.instagram.com/p/DVvfrhOk20n/

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks for that info. Perhaps you could do a post to let more people know about these options.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago

yes, "we" are. How do we know this, look at election results.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 40 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

NO ONE

WANTS

TO DIE

FOR ISRAEL

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prex@aussie.zone 30 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

I got down voted last time for pointing out that "between the river and the sea" was the motto of the town of mosman park

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's also a John Farnham song

[–] rosco385@lemmy.wtf 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Close. There are two potentially relevant Farnam songs that may have been conflated in this discourse. One is That’s Freedom, which includes the lines "From the mountain to the valley / From the ocean to the alley / From the highway to the river". And the other is Two Strong Hearts, which repeatedly uses the line "Reaching out forever like a river to the sea". Neither quite uses "from the river to the sea", but together they give the same sort of impression.

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago

I didn't expect John Farnham scholarship as part of this topic, but I'm into it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 26 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Does Australia not have freeze peach laws in general? Asking as an ignorant Yank.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 37 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Its a very recent addition that creates some exceptions to australian free speech protections under the guise of combatting anti-semitism. Basically just the Israel lobby getting their personal laws.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 20 points 3 weeks ago

Australia's constitution has been interpreted by our High Court to contain an implied right to freedom of political communication. Restrictions on that right may be constitutional if they are (1) for a valid purpose and are (2) narrowly targeted towards that purpose.

The law she was arrested under was only passed by the Queensland state Parliament earlier this week (or late last week? I forget). It is definitely going to face constitutional challenge, and there is a very good chance it is ruled struck down. This is because the law literally outlaws two specific phrases from one side of a political issue, and is likely to be seen as stifling free flow of political discourse, rather than being a more "content-neutral" law.

This article, written by a constitutional scholar, gives some great insight: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/08/the-lnps-phrase-banning-law-is-wide-open-to-constitutional-attack-is-it-a-victory-for-the-people-or-a-smart-political-play

[–] nevetsg@aussie.zone 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

We have a lot of laws and legal interpritation, but it isnt written into our constitution like the US.

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 21 points 3 weeks ago

Pollies like to say free speech is “implied” when it supports them and point out that it’s not a right when it doesn’t support them.

It’s a funny ol’ system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 8 points 3 weeks ago

It's complicated.

It's not a constitutional right.

However, there's a lot of case law that supports the rights of citizens to express their thoughts about governments. All levels all processes, with the exception of sedition, treason, national security, et cetera.

We do have strong defamation laws. There was a case a few years ago where a politician was found to have been "defamed" by another politician with respect to comments that were made.

We also have recently strengthened hate speech laws, which is the issue in this specific picture.

Finally spreading information that might compromise national security, and publications showing violence or other offensive content.

In practice, I expect that the situation is similar to what it was in pre-Trump America. However, it's true that in theory the government could pass a law saying you're not allowed to say anything bad about the government.

10 years ago any self respecting American would have pointed out how inferior our system is and that we don't have any rights or freedoms. I feel like that imbalance has shifted however.

[–] ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

In short our constitution is boring.

There will be states, federal government will do this, states do everything else

Separation of powers, there will be a crown, legislative (parliamentary), executive (public service) and judicial (courts).

Then how to alter the constitution and add the ability to annex new Zealand and that's pretty much a wrap. Nothing fancy like yous have.

Edit, forgot consolidated revenue

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 5 points 3 weeks ago

There are limits to it even in the us for example if you say something slightly offending about the president.

[–] node2527@lemy.lol 22 points 3 weeks ago

What a fucking legend.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

It's absurd. Like the British guy arrested for wearing a "Plasticine Action" tshirt.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Anyone know how likely it is for her to be given the max sentence?

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 37 points 3 weeks ago

The public prosecutor would need to prove the shirt was used to “menace, harassment or offence”. Even a mediocre defence lawyer should be able to have the charges thrown out.

A good lawyer will take it to the High Court of Australia and get the legislation thrown out.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 15 points 3 weeks ago

This protester's charges have been resolved by their acceptance of an 'adult caution', so they won't be facing any more legal proceedings over this incident. More details in my comment here: https://aussie.zone/post/30509630/21880036

[–] porcelainpitcher@lemmy.today 13 points 3 weeks ago

This is a John Farnham appreciation shirt! "TWO STRONG HEARTS. We stick together from the River to the Sea! Ruuuning free!" See. All good.

[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

From Canada to Mexico, Iran will be free?

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Straight to jail, right away

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

What about if I wore a South China Sea shirt? Would I get praised or arrested?

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Their leaders are all in the Epstein files and Israel has a copy

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You know, in the UAE, they have freedom of speech enshrined in their laws, too...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Seagoon_@aussie.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago

Nope.

I don't like it in a hundred ways but making draconian laws is not the way to have political discourse.

load more comments
view more: next ›