More info on the Queensland laws: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/05/queensland-pro-palestinian-phrase-ban-river-to-sea-laws-ntwnfb

Are we ok with this people?

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.

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.

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

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

It's also a John Farnham song

No.

Sure AF doesn't feel like "hatred".

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

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

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/

Just be outraged online, bro, you'll be doing your part.

Cool ass lady

From Canada to Mexico, Iran will be free?

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.

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

Straight to jail, right away

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

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.

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.

Nope.

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

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.

One step ahead of you...

Believe it or not...

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

The Coalition were all about free speech when Andrew Bolt published a series of articles explicitly attacking and trying to humiliate named Aboriginal people on the basis of (what he decided was) their race. They tried to weaken the racial discrimination act. Brandis even said Australians have "a right to be bigots" - this was only 12 years ago. The double standard is breathtaking.

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

This is a complete lie - she was given a warning, nothing more.

OP is lying - she wasn’t even charged. She was given a warning.

I do believe this can be referred to as queen shit.

Wordplay with Queensland unintended.

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

Warning for what

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

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.

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.

She was arrested and charged, and took the option of receiving an 'adult caution'. (Mentioned in this Guardian article.)

I think it would be misleading to say that's 'a warning and nothing more'.

If she hadn't opted for the 'adult caution' - which requires that you don't deny committing the offence - then she'd still be facing charges and gaol time.

So I reckon 'complete lie' might be a bit uncharitable, when really the information is just out of date.

Thanks for raising the point though, good to hear this protester doesn't have legal proceedings hanging over their head.

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

No they haven't. You made that up

What a fucking legend.

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

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.

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.

Yes, if you change the words and the context, the meaning changes.
"From the river to the sea" is the rallying cry of various groups who want to destroy Israel and remove the people who were born and live there, even though the slogan doesn't literally say it.
So maybe use a different slogan if you want something different?

It's not surprising that antisemites would also protest Israel, but that doesn't mean we should stop protesting Israel. There's nothing more to it. We should not fall for our opponent's tricks trying to paint us as antisemites

I'm not saying stop protesting Israel. I'm saying don't use the slogan that's used by Antisemites, if you don't want to be confused with them.
What's wrong with shouting "Free Palestine, End The Occupation" instead?

Because our opponents will always be nibbling at what we can and cannot say and we should resist and reject their bad-faith criticism. Our opponents are trying to paint us as antisemites. Your honest attempt at distancing ourselves from antisemitic groups has exactly the opposite effect: It legitimizes their criticism where it was never in good faith to begin with

And yet now the Jews are the oppressors/instigators 🫩

What a world.

Zionists, not Jews, are the problem.

Even as an atheist I belive the main issue is not your belief, but what you do with it.

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

Oh fuck! I didn't see this before I commented the lyrics 🤣🤣 that's so classic.