Australia

I'm gona jump in to defend Brandis a little here and say his views on these things are usually ideologically consistent. I don't know if he's been asked specifically about this case, but his response (if he decided to respond), would likely be worth listening to. Even if disagreeable.

Not at all shocking because it was never really a double standard.

The LNP exists to maintain the current power structures of Australia. If you in any way threaten that structure (based on Anglo-European patriarchal values) the LNP will be against you. If you uphold those values they will support you.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.