A legal battle over free speech and political expression has commenced in Australia, as a group of pro-Palestine protesters has launched a High Court challenge against a controversial Queensland law. The legislation, which came into effect in March 2026, prohibits the use of the slogans 'from the river to the sea' and 'globalise the intifada', making their public recitation, distribution, or display an offence. Those found in breach face potential imprisonment of up to two years if their actions are deemed likely to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed, or offended.
The lawsuit, filed last week on behalf of seven protesters, argues that the ban constitutes a 'direct, content-based restriction' on speech. The applicants contend that the law's primary purpose is to suppress these expressions solely due to their content, effectively targeting the pro-Palestine movement. They further allege that the legislation imposes an undue burden on the implied freedom of political communication enshrined in the Australian constitution, claiming it lacks a legitimate purpose and creates discrimination by outlawing specific political viewpoints.
Since the laws were implemented earlier this year, more than 30 individuals have been arrested and charged. Four of the applicants in the High Court challenge – Stephen Heydt, Ed Carroll, Sam Watson, and Kathryn Dennehy – were among those arrested at rallies in April and June. They assert they were subjected to police searches and detained for several hours following their arrests.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has previously justified the ban, stating in June 2026 that the phrases are antisemitic. He linked their use to the 'hatred that allowed what came on to the shores of Bondi' in the December 2025 terrorist attack. However, the challenging group maintains that 'from the river to the sea' is not inherently racist, antisemitic, or violent, offering 12 alternative interpretations, including 'an expression of Palestinian identity' and 'a broad aspiration for Palestinian freedom and realisation of their human rights'.
While the law includes defences for using the expressions for genuine artistic, religious, educational, historical purposes, or in the public interest, the protesters argue these 'reasonable excuse provisions' do not render the law constitutional. They highlight that the burden of proving such excuses falls on the individual, and even if acquitted, the experience of arrest and detention can still have a chilling effect on free speech.