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.