We have followed the evisceration of free speech values in the United Kingdom and other Western nations. Australia has been one of the most chilling examples of how a population can be conditioned over time to view free speech as a threat. The country now criminalizes and regulates an ever-expanding range of speech, including political and religious viewpoints. The most recent example is the Supreme Court of New South Wales upholding a conviction for ‘vilification’ after women’s rights campaigner Kirralie Smith and the publication Binary Australia referred to two transgender individuals as men due to their biological sex. That led not only to $95,000 in fines but also to a sentence of compelled speech.
The complaint was filed in November 2023 by Justin “Riley” Dennis and Nicholas “Stephanie” Blanch after the defendants objected to their inclusion in women’s football.
Rather than engage in that public debate on the merits, Dennis and Blanch also sought to punish the defendants for causing “serious contempt” and “severe ridicule” by refusing to use female pronouns and other identifiers according to their transgender status. The NSW Local Court found Smith and Binary Australia incited hatred and severe ridicule of the two trans women, holding that they exposed the athletes to “a sustained campaign of belittling, harassment and intimidation.”
Found guilty, Smith was given a $55,000 fine for Blanch and another $40,000 fine for Dennis to be paid within the next 28 days.
In an added chilling penalty, the court ordered Smith and Binary to publish a statement that they reject and to keep it featured on social media for three months. The addition of compelled speech makes this a perfect storm of anti-free speech measures.
We have previously written about the free speech nightmare in Australia. Former Australian Attorney-General and Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland has been an enthusiastic champion of censorship. She insisted:
“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.”
The lack of free speech protection by the courts has fueled this trend. Previously, the High Court ruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for third-party comments on those posts. That exposed publications to crippling costs for allowing free speech exchanges on social media. While there have been occasional wins for free speech litigants, the Australian courts have shown comparably little fealty to free speech.
Polls have shown that many Australians still have concerns about the government’s crackdown, and 45 percent believe that information deemed “misinformation” by the government should still be protected. That is still a sizable portion of the population. With a mere majority supporting free speech principles, there is a sharp disconnect from the extreme anti-free-speech policies passed by the legislature and enforced by the courts.
Christian groups are pushing for a final appeal in the case.
One can disagree with Smith and still support her right to reject transgender status and criticize the inclusion of trans athletes in women’s sports. While I have low expectations for the Australian courts, the Australian people still hold lingering free speech values even after years of crackdowns and prosecutions. However, it will take a major political movement to remove anti-free-speech elements from the country’s legislature and courts.
This is what happens when you let them take all your guns.
The 2nd protects the 1st.
Australia is as lost as the UK and Canada.
This is what happens when you really don’t have freedom of speech! Just like Canada and the UK! Only in the Good ol’ USA do you really get to have your say!
The natural reflex from any politician or government bureaucrat is “Totalitarianism”.
Those drawn to government authority in the first place are largely control freaks. If these type of personalities aren’t in total control (totalitarianism) they perceive things as out of control.
The problem is these type of control freaks essentially view legal 1st Amendment activity as probable cause under the 4th Amendment – they view freedom of speech as wrong and probable cause of a crime.
Americans should be leading on this since totalitarianism is a foreign concept, not found in the American system.
For example: in the early 2000’s American Conservatives (largely totalitarian) viewed Americans with dark skin driving was probable cause (Driving While Black) – a perfectly legal activity.
Conservatives viewed dark skinned Americans playing paintball as probable cause of terrorist activity – a perfectly legal activity and not applied to white players.
If you were an American of white European descent, on vacation you could photograph bridges, dams or government facilities – a perfectly legal activity. Non-whites were viewed as terrorism suspects.
Over the past 25 years, your local “Fusion Center” has covertly blacklisted (for life) non-white citizens that do the exactly the same thing as white citizens. It’s virtually impossible to be removed from these unconstitutional blacklists. Even if you were removed, that still doesn’t repair 25 years of defamation and employment tampering by Fusion Centers (federally funded by DOJ & DHS). These innocent Americans need official apologies from DOJ to repair employment tampering and defamation.
Even top George W. Bush officials publicly admitted their totalitarianism went too far, they regret their unAmerican practices.
Bottom Line: the totalitarian mindset of many (not all) government bureaucrats and politicians simply picks on any unpopular group or individual, it’s not based on a fair system of Justice. So Americans have no standing to judge the censorship of other nations. Maybe America should lead by example?
“For example: in the early 2000’s American Conservatives (largely totalitarian) viewed Americans with dark skin driving was probable cause (Driving While Black) – a perfectly legal activity.”
Bullshyt
Apologist much?
No.
Americans have every right to call this what it is: state-enforced speech codes that criminalize accurate description of biological reality. Pointing that out is not “judging other nations from a glass house.” It’s noticing that a court just ordered citizens to recite the state’s preferred fiction under threat of legal consequence. That’s the actual totalitarian move.
Your counter-history is a greatest-hits of progressive talking points dressed up as insight:
• “Driving While Black” was never a formal legal doctrine that treated lawful driving as probable cause. Selective enforcement and bad policing existed (and still do). Equating that to a court order that compels speech is not analysis; it’s deflection.
• Paintball “terrorism” hysteria and bridge-photography paranoia after 9/11 were real excesses. Some were stupid, some were bigoted, some were later walked back. None of them required private citizens to affirm a contested metaphysical claim about sex as a condition of remaining in good standing with the state.
• Fusion Centers have produced documented abuses, overreach, and permanent blacklisting problems. Criticize them. That still does not convert an Australian court ruling that forces people to say “she” for a male into a “who are we to talk?” situation.
The early-2000s security state excesses you list were mostly about risk assessment after a mass-casualty attack. The pronoun order is about compelled ideological conformity. One is (badly executed) threat response. The other is the state declaring certain words mandatory and others punishable. Those are not the same category.
The “control freaks drawn to government” observation is true enough, and it applies with equal force to the progressive administrative state that now treats disagreement about sex as a form of harm requiring legal remedy. Pretending this pathology only ever ran in one political direction is the real historical amnesia.
Americans should lead by example: by refusing to criminalize accurate speech about sex, by rejecting compelled pronouns, and by treating biological reality as non-negotiable public fact. That is the opposite of totalitarianism. Treating the demand that everyone participate in the fiction as the baseline of “justice,” then accusing critics of hypocrisy for noticing the fiction, is the actual soft authoritarianism on display.
WTF are you talking about? You just conflated the most crap I have ever seen in my life. If we follow your logic every single culture on earth would be guilty of something. That is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen. And….why is American responsible for you asinine politics in Australia? I mean your country just fined 2 people for essentially telling the truth and youre not protesting that?!?! My friend, you have some serious soul searching to do!
“Even top George W. Bush officials publicly admitted their totalitarianism went too far, they regret their unAmerican practices.”
What?? Do you just make this up to suit your agenda? And the DWB thing? You are a piece of work…
Holy Moley! Who is this guy (or gal)? What a load of disinformation. Fusion Centers are for law enforcement agencies to merge and exchange information on criminals, like INTERPOL does. Driving While Black was a book. There is no movement. There never was a problem with anyone driving. Anyone may play paintball. The person who wrote this is intentionally spreading untruths. Come to the US and see. Oh, how about reading articles and watching You Tubes/ Tick Toks of the thousands and thousands of Europeans who recently came to the Soccer Finals and see their experiences? They recognized that authors like the above have been printing such untruths for a long time, and that the US is actually a nice country with nice people.
Oh, and “Anonymous” is probably a 38- year old North Korean propagandist fulfilling his weekly assignment of publishing 26 Anti-US articles in as many countries by the end of the week. This was his third article. He is happy to still be alive and not eaten by starving dogs or tied to the muzzle of an anti-aircraft cannon and shot.
If the dynamics of the Australian gambit described above differ in any significant way from the ‘reforms’ introduced to public thought by Lenin or Dr. Goebbels I certainly can’t see what that difference may be.
It’s not just abolition of free speech, but an attack on freedom of religion too. “Thou shalt not bear false witness”. Violating the the ninth commandment, telling a lie, is a sin for Christians. The government is requiring people to lie contrary to their religious convictions because they have no regard for Christianity. That is the same as requiring a Muslims or Jew to eat pork, which they would never do, but punishing a Christian for refusal to lie is somehow OK.
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era”; close the border; rescind rebel sanctuary cities; compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens since Jan. 1, 1863; issue mass temporary work permits with no path to citizenship; revoke birthright citizenship; make English the sole official language; commence a war to defeat the rebellion; impose martial law; suspend habeas corpus; “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms; and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save not the Union but the Nation, eradicate communism and the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.
Not to be outdone by the “villification and harassment” ruling in Australia’s trans case, British tabloid The Guardian just announced that 155 scientists and researchers just sent a letter blaming the Trump administration for “vilification and harassment of many American scientists,” to wit, Anthony Fauci, after Senator Rand Paul disclosed email texts from Fauci telling his [Fauci’s] team to delete/erase emails and texts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/28/trump-administration-fauci-scientists
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unearthed-emails-blow-hole-in-fauci-s-claim-that-he-never-asked-staff-to-delete-emails/ar-AA1MhH0W
Lin, that’s the same trick wearing a different jersey. “Vilification” doing the heavy lifting to cover up factual scrutiny is the exact move we’ve been picking apart in the Smith case all day. Fauci told his own people in writing to delete records, then turned around and swore under oath he never did that. Somebody pointing that out with the actual emails in hand isn’t harassment. That’s just called holding a guy to his own word.
That’s why it matters how these words get stretched anywhere. Once “vilification” or “harassment” gets wide enough to swallow up honest, documented criticism, it doesn’t stay on one side of the aisle. It’s a tool. And tools get picked up by whoever’s got the power that day, red or blue, doesn’t matter.
Olly: Yes, (your last paragraph is good) and that phrase (vilification and harassment) becomes the phrase du jour for MSM/media’s manipulation of public sentiment…
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
I’d say they could fight back but they can’t. I had an Aussie friend once ask me why we Americans had such an obsession with guns. I told him that we we similar countries – both English speaking, former British colonies. However, Australia’s independence was GIVEN to them; we TOOK ours by force.
It helped that the French told the British to stop attacking the Colonies and backed the Colonies up with cash, ships, and troops.
It’s a minor detailed as overlooked as is the Land of the Free and the home of the Slaves.
They gave up their guns and speech followed.
With free-speech falling in many Western countries, it more important now more than ever to fight to maintain free speech in America.