Queensland’s controversial hate speech laws have become the subject of a major High Court challenge, with pro-Palestinian activists arguing the legislation unfairly limits political expression and breaches Australia’s implied freedom of political communication.

The challenge centres on Queensland laws that prohibit the public use of phrases including “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” in circumstances where their use is considered to menace, harass or offend another person. The laws were introduced by the Queensland Government as part of broader measures aimed at addressing antisemitism and community safety concerns.

A group of protesters has taken the matter to the High Court, arguing the restrictions are unconstitutional and place an excessive burden on Australians’ ability to participate in political debate. The legal action claims the phrases can have different meanings depending on context and should not automatically be treated as hate speech.

Supporters of the Queensland legislation argue the laws are necessary to protect Jewish Queenslanders from intimidation and antisemitic abuse. The state government has defended the reforms, saying they are designed to prevent hateful conduct while still allowing legitimate political discussion.

The laws were passed following heightened community concerns about antisemitism, threats and tensions linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Queensland Government said the reforms were intended to strengthen protections against hate and improve safety for communities affected by discrimination.

Critics of the legislation, including civil liberties groups and some Palestinian advocacy organisations, argue the wording is too broad and risks criminalising political opinions and peaceful protest. They say criticism of the Israeli government or expressions of support for Palestinian rights should remain protected forms of political communication.

The legal dispute will require the High Court to consider the balance between two competing principles: protecting communities from genuine hate and intimidation while preserving democratic freedoms of speech and political participation.

The Queensland laws include penalties for certain prohibited expressions when they meet the legal threshold. Authorities have argued that the restrictions apply only in harmful circumstances rather than banning all discussion about Israel, Palestine or the broader Middle East conflict.

The challenge is expected to attract national attention because it could influence how Australian states approach future hate speech legislation. Similar debates have emerged across the country about how governments should respond to rising antisemitism, Islamophobia and politically motivated hate while respecting freedom of expression.

Legal experts are watching the case closely because a High Court ruling could determine the limits of state-based restrictions on protest language and political slogans.

The court’s eventual decision will help clarify how far governments can go when regulating speech connected to controversial political movements, particularly during periods of heightened social tension.

Until the High Court delivers its decision, Queensland’s hate speech laws remain in operation, and police can continue enforcing the legislation according to its current wording.