• Gork@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    17 hours ago

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

    • ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      12 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • Seagoon_@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        15 hours 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.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 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.

    • nevetsg@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      17 hours ago

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

      • joelfromaus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        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.