Protesters mount High Court challenge over Queensland hate speech laws

A group of pro-Palestinian protesters have launched a High Court challenge against Queensland laws that banned the phrases "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada". More than 20 people have been charged under the laws, which carry a maximum jail sentence of two years. What's next? Constitutional law expert Anthony Gray believes a High Court challenge to Queensland's hate speech legislation has a "chance of succeeding". A group of pro-Palestinian protesters have launched a High Court challenge against Queensland laws that banned the phrases "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada". The two phrases have been deemed antisemitic by the government and many Jewish organisations and have been outlawed when used to menace or offend someone. Both of the contested phrases have been commonly used by pro-Palestinian protesters. More than 20 people have been charged under the laws since they took effect in March. The laws carry a maximum jail term of two years. According to filings lodged with the High Court last week, the activists allege the legislation is invalid because it infringes on the right to political communication. The Queensland government has been contacted for comment. It has previously defended the laws and argued in favour of their validity. In April Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie said the laws defended against "venomous, poisonous rhetoric". Seven protesters have signed the filings, including Remah Naji, a spokesperson for the Justice for Palestine group. Four of the signatories Stephen Werner Heydet, Edward Joel Matthew Carroll, Katherine Mary Dennehy and Samuel Woripa Watson — were arrested and charged under the laws, according to the documents. Each are accused of displaying or saying the banned phrase. One of the other applicants, James Frances Hillier, alleges he was told to withdraw some of his artwork that contained the banned phrase after being contacted by police in March. The group claims neither of the banned phrases have a "fixed meaning", an "inherently antisemitic or racist meaning" or an "inherently violent meaning". The filing lays out 12 alternative meanings of "from the river to the sea". The filing alleges the ban causes inequality or discrimination because it seeks to criminalise one perspective on a "political controversy". The group also argues it imposes a burden on the implied freedom of political communication in the constitution. A 'chance of succeeding' Constitutional law expert Anthony Gray believes a High Court challenge to the state's hate speech legislation has a "chance of succeeding". He said the High Court had already recognised Australians have an implied freedom to communicate about political matters. "On one view, the two phrases that have been banned are communications about something that is broadly political in nature," Professor Gray, who was not involved with preparing the challenge in any way, told the ABC. The Bond University expert characterised the state government's legislation as "unusual" because it criminalised specific phrases and sought to outlaw one particular viewpoint. He added that the nature of the phrases also added to the difficulty of banning them, as some people who used them may not have any "bad intentions". The court could also consider whether the state government could demonstrate the legislation was necessary to protect some groups from suffering harm, Professor Gray explained.