this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
320 points (98.8% liked)

Australia

4888 readers
634 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 27 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

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

[–] ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 16 points 13 hours 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

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] nevetsg@aussie.zone 18 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 18 points 16 hours 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.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 13 hours 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.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 5 points 13 hours ago

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