Comment on An 18-year-old woman in Queensland faces two years in jail for wearing a shirt that says "from the river to the sea."

Gork@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Seagoon_@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    From the river to the sea is not per se anti Jewish, Hamas has said that includes killing all 1.75 million Israeli Sunni Muslims too.

    source

    • lodion@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Hamas has said that includes killing all 1.75 million Israeli Sunni Muslims too.

      Got a source for that? I’ve seen you state it as fact multiple times now.

      source

      • CTDummy@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Another time this users just drops by with some “facts” of a particular persuasion only to vanish without any clarification despite posting every other hour. Seems to be a bit of a pattern.

        source
    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      No they haven’t. You made that up

      source
• Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨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: theguardian.com/…/the-lnps-phrase-banning-law-is-…

  source
• nevetsg@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

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

  source

  • joelfromaus@aussie.zone ⁨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.

    source
  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It’s about the vibe.

    source
• fizzle@quokk.au ⁨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.

  source
• ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

  source
• SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

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

  source
• FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  No, we don’t. In fact our leftist government is currently adding more and more authoritarian censorship and speech-restricting laws seemingly every month these days.

  You can now be jailed for saying something that might offend a certain subset of people even if no one actually was offended. Let that sink in.

  source