Stay up to date with the latest from the QCCL
In our modern era, social media is absolutely essential to freedom of speech. Both children and adults have a right to freedom of speech. No doubt the right of children to speak is not as broad as that of an adult. No doubt, children are entitled to protection from some of the harms that might flow from freedom of speech. But they do have a right to access social media to communicate with their friends and to seek information.
Read More
“The Segal report is a rather woolly document - long on assertions and claims for power to be given to the Envoy but short on argument and facts.”
Read MoreThis letter responds to our letter of 16 April 2025. We are disappointed the Minister has doubled down on this anti free speech position. Unlike the Minister we are consistent eg we opposed the laws banning the swastika
Read MoreMs Green’s remarks, clearly fall within the bounds of protected speech. Criticising government policy is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and attempts to suppress such criticism, particularly within artistic expression, set a dangerous precedent. While public institutions may not always agree with the views expressed by individuals, it is wholly inappropriate for governments to use the withdrawal of financial support as a tool to punish or silence speech.
Read MoreIt is a core belief of the QCCL that democracies are strengthened, not weakened, when space is made for peaceful dissent. A decision by the State Government to withdraw funding from the Queensland Music Awards due to one artist’s lawful political expression during an acceptance speech would set a deeply concerning and dangerous precedent.
Read MoreIt is submitted that in relation to the Commission making a public statement both in relation to the corruption assessment stage and at the conclusion of the Commission’s investigations, the Bill should be amended to make it clear that the provision contained within Section 65A(4)(g) namely “whether the statement may unreasonably damage the person’s health, safety or wellbeing or privacy or reputation” should be given significant weight by the Commission in deciding whether to issue a public statement.
Read More
Our position is that the protection of political speech, which is in fact fundamental to any possibility of social advancement, requires that any restraints in it be extremely narrow
Read More“Restrictions on political expenditure are plainly restrictions on freedom of speech. However, restrictions on electoral expenditure are akin to the rules of debate in a meeting which restrict the length of speeches and provide for rights of reply. This feature of expenditure caps makes them more acceptable than donation bans or caps.”
Read More“There have been panics about the effect of technology on children since antiquity, extending to recent examples such as radio, television and comic books. We should not be taking such extreme action in response to this one”
Read MoreWe cannot permit a system to stand which allows people to be sent to jail for years for exposing killings and other gross violations of human rights.
Read MoreWe begin by acknowledging that a physical assault or threat of such in relation to an individual does not give rise to any issue of freedom of speech, as we will come back to in relation to proposed section 80.2 BB. Threats are not in any proper sense part of the communication of information or opinion which is protected by freedom of speech.
Read More“The effect of this legislation is to make ACMA the ultimate arbiter of what is information and what is not.”
Read More“These laws have clearly been rushed and should be withdrawn until there is further and more substantial consultation” says President Michael Cope
Read MoreNotwithstanding our submission that doxing offences in the form contained in the Bill should not be introduced, we submit that; if it were to be introduced, doxxing should be an offence only to the extent it can be equated to harassment or stalking as the unacceptable behavior and consequences are similar.
Read More
It is legitimate for the government to promote our personal safety by restricting information about how to make your own nerve gas but not legitimate for it to promote our safety by stopping political agitation which could, if unchecked, lead to widespread social conflict
Read More. Why then has the police service deployed the resources of a squad specially prepared and trained to meet serious violence in this case? Many members of the public might well conclude from this that these individuals were engaged in terrorism, when plainly they were not
Read MoreThere are new and draconian powers of warrantless stop and search once a person is the subject of a Firearms Protection Order
Read MoreThe Internet should not be regulated as a broadcast medium and yet that is what the Online Safety Act does.
Read MoreIt is our position that in order to ensure that Local Councils in the State properly comply with their obligations in this regard, section 5 (4) of the Peaceful Assembly Act ought to be repealed. That way, local authorities in this State would become subject to the same notification and Court review process as the police are.
Read More“The inability of government to act as arbiter in its own cause means that freedom of speech includes the right to make false claims about social and political matters. In order to sustain uninhibited political discourse, the state cannot prevent resort to exaggeration or offence or even to false statements”, says Mr Cope
Read More
