Seven pro-Palestine protesters have taken the state of Queensland to Australia's highest court over a law that bans two protest phrases: "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada." The law has led to more than 30 arrests since it started in March 2026 The Guardian.

The protesters argue that the ban unfairly targets one side of a political debate. Their legal case rests on two main points. First, they say the law restricts political speech that the Australian Constitution protects through something called the "implied freedom of political communication" — a rule the High Court created to keep government from limiting political discussion, even though the Constitution does not spell out a right to free speech the way the US Constitution does. Second, they say the law is discriminatory because it outlaws specific expressions tied to one political movement The Guardian.

The lead protester in the case is Remah Naji, a member of the Justice for Palestine group. Six others have joined her. Four of them — Stephen Heydt, Ed Carroll, Sam Watson and Kathryn Dennehy — were arrested and charged with breaking the law at protests in April and June 2026 The Guardian. Those arrested say police searched them and held them in a police watch house for up to eight hours The Guardian. Watson had previously taken part in the Global Samud flotilla The Guardian.

The Queensland law is formally called the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands… Act 2026 (2026 Act No. 4). It was introduced as Bill No. 8 of 2026 in the Queensland Parliament Queensland Legislation. The law makes it a crime to say, print, or display either banned phrase in a way that might reasonably be expected to make a member of the public feel menaced, harassed or offended The Guardian. The maximum penalty is two years in prison. Notably, no actual person needs to complain or be harmed for someone to be charged — the test is whether a hypothetical reasonable person might feel those effects The Guardian.

Section 8 of the same Act also replaced an older section of the Criminal Code Act 1899 that dealt with violence against officiating ministers of religion Queensland Legislation. The current version of the Criminal Code Act 1899, as of 16 July 2026, confirms the ban in section 52DA Queensland Legislation.

Queensland's Liberal National Party government passed the laws after the Bondi terrorist attack in December 2025 The Guardian. Premier David Crisafulli said the phrases are antisemitic and described them as "the hatred that allowed what came on to the shores of Bondi" The Guardian.

Since March, the enforcement has been widespread. More than 30 people have been arrested and charged under the laws The Guardian. Among the earliest charged was a Jewish man wearing a shirt that read "Jews for a free Palestine from the river to the sea" The Guardian. In April 2026, ABC News reported that 70-year-old peace activist Jim Dowling had been arrested for displaying a "From the River to the Sea" banner, with a court appearance set for 14 April 2026 ABC News. SBS News reported that more than 20 people were arrested across two Brisbane protests over a single weekend opposing the ban SBS News.

Australia's approach to free speech is unusual. Unlike the United States, which has a First Amendment that directly guarantees free speech, Australia has no written bill of rights. Instead, the High Court of Australia — the country's top court — has ruled over the years that the Constitution implies a limited freedom of political communication. You can think of it as a fence around government power: the court has said that laws cannot place an unreasonable burden on political discussion unless they serve a legitimate purpose and are proportionate to that purpose. The University of Queensland Law Journal has published an academic analysis by Derick MJ Luong titled "FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA: WILL THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW IT?" looking at the very constitutional question this case now raises UQ Law Journal.

Several aspects of the law make it constitutionally vulnerable, according to the plaintiffs. The ban targets two specific phrases linked to one political movement, rather than applying broadly. No actual victim needs to exist for someone to be charged, which lowers the bar for prosecution and gives police more discretion. And because the law includes the word "offended" alongside "menaced" and "harassed," someone could face criminal charges for causing offence rather than posing any real threat — a distinction the High Court has examined in earlier cases.

The broader context here involves the tension between public safety and free expression in a country that has no written bill of rights. Queensland passed this law in the wake of a mass-casualty event, packaging the slogan ban into a broader law whose title references both antisemitism and firearms control. That packaging may help the government argue the ban serves a protective purpose. The plaintiffs will need to show that the link between two protest slogans and a terrorist attack is too indirect to meet the proportionality standard the High Court has set.

The case also raises questions about whether criminal penalties discourage political protest in Australia, especially for movements whose language is disputed. The fact that a Jewish protester was among those charged, and that the plaintiffs include long-time peace activists, complicates the government's position that the banned phrases are inherently antisemitic. The High Court will ultimately decide whether Queensland's decision to criminalise specific political language survives constitutional scrutiny — or whether the implied freedom of political communication requires more room for contested expression in Australian public life.