591
An 18-year-old woman in Queensland faces two years in jail for wearing a shirt that says "from the river to the sea." (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44131480

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 74 points 6 months ago (21 children)

Banning words. Next will be books. Fuck the fash.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    They already banning books in USA... 

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 6 months ago (11 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    You just said there's no banned books and then said there's banned books.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Its hair splitting. Libraries are controlled by a variety of institutions, sometimes non-profits or municipalities. The 1st amendment prevents the federal government from banning protected speech, but private entities can do what they like. (like moderators on a forum).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    That's the thing tho, they are doing these bannings at low level places like those to get those books already out of as many places as they can while maintaining a veil of legitimacy as they haven't done in a national level, therefore they aren't "banning bonds" just like you're argumentive, but the effect is not too dissimilar from banning them at a federal level, less people are getting access to critical information that allows them to learn of how evil the government has been and currently is

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    Depends on.

    For example: I hold up a Sign, where I demand the Death of (insert minority here). Should this be legal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Ignoring the fact that that's the literal opposite of what happened here... Who should decide whether that's legal, and to what extent should they be able to decide what is and isn't legal to say?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    I guess I ought to clarify my position. The line should be drawn well on the side of freedom of expression. Emotive expressions should virtually always be legal. As long as there isn't reason to believe that a thing that someone says is going to lead to a crime being committed, any punishment for that speech is unwarranted. That includes things like "I demand the death of (insert minority here)."

    Unless you can convince a jury of that person's peers that that particular expression was going to lead to a particular crime being committed against a particular person (like, if I said "here's a gun, go kill that guy"), that speech should be legally protected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •