FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT ALLOW INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE you have to wonder 3 years of the Free Palestine -Hamas Agenda?

**Free speech (freedom of expression) in Australia is not an absolute or broadly enshrined individual right.** Australia has no general federal constitutional or statutory guarantee equivalent to the US First Amendment. Protections are narrower, primarily focused on political communication, and subject to significant statutory limits.

We need a referendum on Free Speech in Australia and registered into the constitution also freedom of Speech DOES NOT INCUDE INCITEMENT TO COMMIT VIOLENCE Graham Healy Thur 23/7/26

### Core Australian Position (Official Sources)

- **No express constitutional right**: The Australian Constitution does not contain a bill of rights or explicit free-speech clause.

- **Implied freedom of political communication**: The High Court has recognised an implied freedom arising from the system of representative and responsible government (primarily sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, which require that members of Parliament be “directly chosen by the people”). This requires free access to political information so electors can make an informed choice.

It is **not a personal right** conferred on individuals. It operates as a limitation on legislative and executive power. A law that burdens the freedom is valid only if it is reasonably appropriate and adapted (proportionate) to serving a legitimate end compatible with the system of representative and responsible government (the *Lange* test and subsequent refinements).

- **Common law**: Courts apply a principle of statutory interpretation that Parliament is presumed not to intend to abrogate fundamental common-law freedoms (including freedom of expression) unless the intention is clear.

- **International obligations**: Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 protects freedom of opinion (absolute) and freedom of expression (subject to restrictions necessary for the rights/reputations of others, national security, public order, public health or morals). Article 20 requires prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. These are not directly enforceable as domestic rights in most of Australia (though the ACT and Victoria have human-rights legislation incorporating similar protections).

**Key relevant federal laws** (referenced from Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Human Rights Commission and Parliamentary Library sources):

_________________________________________________________

| Law | Key Provisions Affecting Speech | Nature |

|-----|--------------------------------|--------|

| *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth) ss 18C & 18D | Unlawful to do a public act reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group because of race, colour, or national/ethnic origin. Section 18D provides exemptions for anything said or done reasonably and in good faith in artistic, academic, scientific discussion, fair comment on matters of public interest, or fair reporting. | Civil (unlawful, not criminal) |

| *Criminal Code Act 1995* (Cth) Division 80 (hate-crime and related offences) | Criminalises advocating, counselling, promoting, encouraging or urging physical force or violence (or being reckless as to it) against groups or members distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality or political opinion; also covers threats of violence, advocating/threatening property damage against protected groups, advocating terrorism, and related symbol offences (e.g., Nazi symbols). Recent expansions (2025) broadened groups, lowered the fault element in places to recklessness, and removed certain good-faith defences. Penalties up to 7–12 years. | Criminal |

| Other | Defamation (uniform state/territory laws with public-interest and serious-harm reforms); telecommunications offences (using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend); classification laws; parliamentary privilege; contempt; new privacy tort (2025) with public-interest balancing. | Mixed |

Sources: Attorney-General’s Department guidance on the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Australian Human Rights Commission materials; Parliamentary Library research papers; Attorney-General’s Department hate-crime offences page.

State and territory laws (defamation, anti-discrimination, public-order offences) add further restrictions. ACT and Victoria have explicit human-rights statutes protecting freedom of expression subject to reasonable limits.

### What Free Speech Is **Not** (Common Limitations in Both Countries)

Free speech does **not** protect:

- **Incitement to violence or imminent lawless action**

- **True threats** of violence

- **Speech integral to criminal conduct** (e.g., conspiracy, fraud)

- **Child sexual abuse material / child pornography**

- **Obscenity** (narrowly defined)

- **Defamation** (false statements harming reputation, with varying standards)

- **Certain commercial speech** that is false or misleading

- Advocacy of racial/religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (Australia implements this more readily via statute; the US is more restrictive via the Brandenburg standard)

________________________________________________

### Comparison Table: Free Speech in Australia vs United States

| Aspect | Australia | United States |

|--------|-----------|---------------|

| **Constitutional basis** | No express right. Implied freedom of **political communication** only (High Court cases from 1992 onward: *Nationwide News*, *Australian Capital Television*, *Lange*, etc.). Not a personal right. | Explicit First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Broad individual right against government. |

| **Scope** | Narrower — primarily protects political communication necessary for representative government. Non-political speech has weaker constitutional protection. | Very broad — political, ideological, artistic, commercial (limited), symbolic, offensive, and much private speech. |

| **Nature of protection** | Limit on government power. Laws can burden the freedom if proportionate to a legitimate end compatible with the constitutional system. | Strong presumption against content-based government restrictions. Strict scrutiny for most content-based laws. |

| **Racial / hate speech** | Civil prohibition under *Racial Discrimination Act* s 18C (offend/insult/humiliate/intimidate on racial grounds) with good-faith public-interest exemptions (s 18D). Criminal offences for advocating/threatening violence against protected groups (Criminal Code Div 80, expanded 2025). | Generally protected unless it rises to incitement of imminent lawless action, true threats, or fighting words. Pure hate speech is usually protected (*R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, etc.). |

| **Incitement / urging violence** | Broader criminal liability: advocating or being reckless as to force/violence against protected groups; advocating terrorism. Lower thresholds in recent reforms. | Strict *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969) test: speech must be directed to inciting or producing **imminent** lawless action **and** be likely to produce such action. Mere advocacy of violence is protected. |

| **Defamation** | Uniform state laws; public-interest defence and serious-harm threshold introduced in recent reforms. | First Amendment requires “actual malice” for public figures (*New York Times v. Sullivan*). Stronger protection for speech about public matters. |

| **Other notable limits** | Classification of films/publications/games; online content regulation; visa character test (risk of inciting discord); Nazi symbol bans; workplace political-opinion protections exist but are limited. | Obscenity (*Miller* test), true threats, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to crime. Time/place/manner restrictions allowed if content-neutral. |

| **International influence** | Stronger influence of ICCPR Arts 19–20 and CERD; Australia has reservations on full criminalisation of racial hatred. | First Amendment is domestic and generally more protective than international human-rights standards on hate speech. |

**Summary of key difference**: The United States treats free speech as a foundational individual right with only narrow, well-defined exceptions. Australia treats political communication as constitutionally necessary for democracy but allows Parliament wider latitude to regulate speech that is offensive, racially vilifying, or that advocates (or is reckless as to) violence against groups, provided the regulation meets the proportionality test or is otherwise valid under ordinary statutes.

Official Australian government references:

- Attorney-General’s Department – Right to freedom of opinion and expression

- Australian Human Rights Commission – Freedom of information, opinion and expression

- Parliamentary Library – Freedom of expression research papers

- Attorney-General’s Department – Hate crime offences

- Legislation: *Racial Discrimination Act 1975*, *Criminal Code Act 1995* (available on legislation.gov.au)

This reflects the position as of mid-2026 based on official government and parliamentary sources. Laws continue to evolve, particularly around hate crime and social cohesion.