This article was written in response to a question raised during a recent discussion with a young person concerned about the erosion of free speech and the increasing use of legal systems to silence dissent. The question, framed by their lived experience of being told to “be quiet,” was:
“Why are governments and powerful interest groups increasingly using the law – not to protect citizens, but to silence them – and what does this mean for the future of free speech and dissent?”
What follows is not a definitive answer, but a mentor’s attempt to share experience and knowledge – to trace the patterns, to name the mechanisms, and to offer a way of seeing that might help navigate a world where the law is no longer a shield, but a weapon.
I. Introduction: A Dangerous Precedent
On 2 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a ruling in Case C-67/25 whose implications extend far beyond sanctions on a single Russian media outlet. The Court determined that the EU’s ban on Russia Today (RT) applies not only to large media companies, but to any individual who publicly shares RT content – regardless of whether the activity is non-commercial, small in scale, or limited in duration. In Germany, violating this ban carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
“Truth is no defence.”
As many commentators have pointed out, under this ruling, even sharing an RT video that merely states “the sky is blue” could technically be illegal. This completely overturns the Enlightenment tradition of judging information by its content rather than by its source.
This is a dangerous precedent. Today it is RT. Tomorrow it could be any journalist, platform, researcher, or citizen who shares material that contradicts the approved narrative. This is not about countering disinformation – it is about controlling information itself.
II. The CJEU Ruling: Legal Framework and Reasoning
2.1 Case Background and Core Findings
Case C-67/25 originated in a criminal proceeding in Saarbrücken, Germany, where three individuals faced prosecution for making RT Germany videos available on public websites and channels. The case was referred to the Luxembourg court to clarify the scope of EU sanctions.
The Court’s reasoning is that the sanctions target the source of information itself, not its content. Once content is deemed to have been published by a sanctioned entity (such as RT), the act of dissemination itself constitutes an offence. The judges argued that only such a broad interpretation of “operator” could effectively achieve the EU’s core goal of “countering Russian propaganda.”
2.2 The Impact on Freedom of Expression
This ruling conflicts significantly with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of expression and requires that restrictions be prescribed by law and necessary for legitimate aims such as protecting national security or public order.
Extending the ban indefinitely and applying it to ordinary individuals raises serious questions about “necessity” and “proportionality.” If sharing a truthful news story via social media carries criminal risk, such restrictions may no longer be compatible with international human rights law.
III. From Europe to Australia: The Global Spread of Lawfare
3.1 The Mary Kostakidis Case: Lawfare in Australia
Mary Kostakidis, one of Australia’s most respected journalists and former SBS news presenter, is being sued by the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for sharing posts critical of Israel on social media.
The case is widely seen as an example of “lawfare” – a strategy of using “costly and protracted legal action to silence and punish critics.” Parts of the ZFA’s lawsuit have already been struck out by the court, but the Federation has been allowed to amend and re-plead.
The central question in this case is: does criticising Israel’s policies constitute antisemitism? As Kostakidis herself has stated, conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is precisely what this case is testing.
3.2 The “Filton Four” Case: A Dangerous Precedent in the UK
In June 2026, four Palestine Action activists – Charlotte Hyde, Samuel Corner, Leona Carmio, and Fatima Zainab Rajwani – were sentenced for damaging equipment at the factory of Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems in Filton, near Bristol.
The judge applied a “terrorism-related” designation to the case, using it to impose heavier sentences. This is the first time in UK legal history that this designation has been applied to direct-action protesters who had not been convicted of terrorism or intentionally committed violence.
Amnesty International UK warned that this marked a “dangerous move against the right to protest”. Supporters noted that the ruling would have “wider implications” for how protest actions are treated in court.
3.3 The Pattern: Attacking the Source, Silencing Dissent
These three cases – the EU ban on RT, the lawsuit against Kostakidis, and the sentencing of the Filton Four – constitute a new, systematic pattern of information control:
- No longer debating the truth or falsehood of information itself, but directly attacking its source.
No longer relying on persuasion but using legal deterrence to suppress dissent.
Stifling criticism by imposing high legal and personal costs on dissent.
This is not a top-down “conspiracy,” but a systematic response by institutionalised power (governments, judiciary, interest groups) to the challenges posed by a “rapidly changing world.”
IV. Free Speech in Australia: Constitutional Gaps and Legal Risks
4.1 No Constitutional Right to Free Speech
Unlike the United States, the Australian Constitution does not contain a Bill of Rights or an explicit freedom of speech clause. The High Court has recognised only a limited “implied” freedom of political communication derived from representative democracy – a protection that is not an individual right.
4.2 Potential Legal Risks
1. Racial Discrimination Act, Section 18C
This provision makes it unlawful to commit a public act that is “offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating” on the basis of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The provision is significantly broader than US law and often places the burden of proof on the defendant.
2. Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act
This Act requires those who lobby or disseminate information on behalf of foreign governments or entities to register. If accused of disseminating information on behalf of a “foreign power,” one could face severe scrutiny, with penalties up to five years imprisonment.
3. Foreign Interference Laws
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, foreign interference is a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. There is considerable room for interpretation regarding the boundary between “interference” and lawful “information dissemination.”
V. Historical Warnings: From Nazi Judges to Contemporary Courts
History teaches us that judicial systems are not immune to the influence of power and ideology. During the Nazi era, judges in red robes served the regime, twisting law into a tool of oppression. Those judges were not “bad people” – they were participants in a system, choosing compliance in exchange for careers, status, and power.
Israel’s recent introduction of the death penalty for Palestinians, and suggestions to turn executions into “media events,” serve as another warning: when the judicial system is used for political purposes, lives themselves become collateral damage.
As noted, judges are not King Solomon. They are part of a system – a system that offers them careers, income, social standing, and the power to deprive individuals of liberty. When the system itself is challenged, judges often choose to protect the system, rather than defend justice.
VI. Conclusion: The Cost of Silence
The CJEU ruling, the lawsuit against Mary Kostakidis, the sentencing of the Filton Four – together they paint a disturbing picture: law is being weaponised to suppress dissent and control information.
These measures are packaged as “countering disinformation” or “protecting national security,” but their essence is controlling the narrative, suppressing criticism, and maintaining existing power structures.
As one commentator noted: “Today it is RT. Tomorrow it could be any journalist, platform, researcher, or citizen who shares material that contradicts the approved narrative.”
When the law itself becomes a tool of suppression, silence and compliance become the least costly options. But silence is not peace – it is complicity.
When law is weaponised to suppress dissent, we all have a responsibility to speak.
References
- European Court of Justice, Case C-67/25, Staatsanwaltschaft Saarbrücken, Criminal proceedings against R, N, K, 12 February 2026.
European Conservative. (2026, July 6). ECJ Makes Prison for Reposting Russia Today Content More Likely.
Reason. (2026, July 6). In Europe, just reposting Russian propaganda can land a blogger in jail.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers. (2026, March 6). Zionist “Vexatious Legal Action” Against Kostakidis Will Go to Trial….
eKathimerini. (2026, June 17). Former SBS presenter Mary Kostakidis receives press freedom award.
Consortium News. (2026, June 18). ‘The Conscience’ of the SBS TV Network.
City Falcon. UK court jails 4 Palestine Action activists in landmark Elbit Systems protest case.
Amnesty International UK. (2026, June 13). UK: Terrorist sentence for Palestine Action activist marks ‘dangerous’ move against right to protest.
University of Cambridge. (2025). Constitutional Implications from Representative Democracy.
Human Rights Law Centre. (2025, September 11). Federal Court orders removal of antisemitic lectures….
Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1995). Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
Commonwealth of Australia. (1975). Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
Also by Dr Klein
Climate Lies and Lives at Stake
The Great Australian Distraction
The Philosopher and the Author – Marx, Dickens, and the Unfinished Struggle Against Extraction
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
We tried to warn you in 2010 when various State governments touted what were referred to as “Anti Bikie” Laws. While none specifically are restricted to Bike club members.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
South Australia Statutes Amendment (Anti-Fortification) Act 2003
Statutes Amendment (Liquor, Gambling and Security
Industries) Act 2005
Statutes Amendment (Power to Bar) Act 2008
Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008
New South Wales Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Act 2006
Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009
Western Australia Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003
Queensland Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
Victoria Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004
Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act 2004
Evidence (Witness Identity Protection) Act 2004
Major Crimes (Investigative Powers) Act 2004
Surveillance Devices (Amendment) Act 2004
Tasmania Police Offences Amendment Act 2007
Northern Territory Justice Legislation (Group Criminal Activities) Act 2006
Serious Crime Control Act 2009
Australian Capital
Territory
Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act 2008
Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2009
The war against dissent is one aspect of the thrashing about of a dying system — liberal democracy.
As the economist Radhika Desai pointed out, the global chaos that has engulfed the world is merely the cost of keeping capitalism in business.
Political power and control is the stuff of history. The conquerors, emperors, prelates, warriors fill pages and there are no ordinary names, deeds, days. A Trump, unfit to clean a university dunny, let alone lecture, research, publish, so he rules, robs, rages, ravishes, all assisted by supporters who see their path. Duck and cover, plain friends. But, I will pass on dissenting…
At least Albo’s got our back..he promised open and transparent government pre 2022 election….full of shit..weak as piss.
Mathematical and philosophical formulas are publicly available which in an uncontested fashion prove that criminalization of Russia Today (RT) reporting does absolutely NOT equal Free Speech.
From the article — “The Court determined that the EU’s ban on Russia Today (RT) applies not only to large media companies, but to any individual who publicly shares RT content – regardless of whether the activity is non-commercial, small in scale, or limited in duration.”
The banning of Russia Today, followed by the court’s totalitarian determination, is the reaction of a system in peril.
But where is the peril, when there is no military threat from Russia, either stated or implied or apparent in any way, and with its hands full in Ukraine?
The threat from Russia is its challenge to the liberal financial order.
The governments that the West has overthrown have all been socialist or have exhibited socialist tendencies.
Brazil. Indonesia. Australia. Chile. Former Yugoslavia. Iraq. Libya. Venezuela…
The governments that the West is currently trying to overthrow are socialist or exhibit socialist tendencies.
China, Russia, Iran. Cuba. Nicaragua.
A socialist tendency as innocuous as the provision of social services such as free or subsidised health care is enough to give rise to antagonism and pressure to slowly dismantle the service.
Social services are seen as a threat to the Western financial system.
Here is the point that they work to keep hidden.
Under the Western financial order there can be no greater authority than the corporate sector.
So even though Russia, China, and Iran operate their economies within a market system closely aligned for operational purposes with that of the liberal West, they stand apart on one key point.
In Russia and China the corporate players can be as wealthy as they wish, as long as they keep their noses out of government policy.
I’m not sure of the status of oligarchs in Iran, or even if there is any, but the thing that matters is that the Islamic State is the ultimate authority.
The state determines policy, as it does in Russia and China.
And so we see that for all the nonsense we hear constantly about the superiority of liberal democracy, there is little about it that is superior.
And they know it.
They fear the threat of a good example.
They fear the threat of a public demanding health care that is equivalent to the standard enjoyed in China.
In short, they fear the rise of systems that utilize capitalism for the good of the nation, not the few.
The principle of freedom of speech has never been so publicly challenged in Australia since the insidious machinations of the Zionist Federation of Australia that influenced PM Albanese to appoint M/s Segal to the unelected position of Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. The slow but steady application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism by governments, universities, and other institutions is primarily concerned with the domination of Australia’s governance and culture to the favour of Zionist Israel and its political designs over Middle East nations. If thousands, if not millions of Australians can see this existential threat to our sovereignty then why can’t /won’t Albanese see it?
….and I am not the only one to be concerned about the anti-semitism band wagon.
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=308453&post_id=206651706&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=4an0y2&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNTk3MzUxNzgsInBvc3RfaWQiOjIwNjY1MTcwNiwiaWF0IjoxNzgzODI1NTE2LCJleHAiOjE3ODY0MTc1MTYsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMDg0NTMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.zJmq_nLArWOy1UAocXYngejgqrgUjEsBxI4kFc4z0fw
Mediocrates, to be clear, anyone who posts here has a pretty free rein as to what they put on the page.
There is, however, depending on one’s point of view, an opportunity that avails when one chooses to post, to do so as elegantly, concisely, interestingly, as possible. Call it an aesthetic, if you will.
Some posters choose to avail themselves of the use of HTML coding to post their links. Thus, in relation to the seven lines of unintelligible junk at the foot of your comments above, the following would suffice concisely.
Bogan Intelligentsia
Same information, neatly expressed.
Others, it appears, don’t care how their posts appear, and just copy/paste the full HTML code instead of utilising the useful skills that HTML coding affords.
Call me a pedant if you want… a bit like Ricky Gervais, I don’t care. My time as a proofreader / copywriter taught me a lot about presentation and keeping the reader firmly in mind when putting text onto the page. Consideration, aesthetics…. they all matter.
Following link is to the HTML syntax for linking to other pages. HTML Links – Syntax. You may find it useful.
Thanks for that Kanga — I’ll give it a go sometime.
Ha ha ha haaar. ‘Freedom of speech’, what a beauty. In the ‘west’ and much of the ‘west’ infected of the world, there’s never been such a thing. That phrase is merely a cute aspiration embedded in politics.
America codified it in the US Constitution, First Amendment via Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Like most things in the US Constitution, its full of hypocrisy, with more holes in it than a crumpet. And there’s nothing more that America’s politically infected legal-eagles luv than pulling language apart to the nth degree, inventing new meanings and sticking to their version of ‘intents’ (usually of dead people) to suit their purposes.
And the purpose of the ‘west’ led by America is to institute via brutal threat of incareration and/or financial ruin those who seek to pronounce deviation or actively deviate from ‘capture capitalism’.
It has never been more cranked up than the last decade (especially since Trump I). Why? One may ask. Could it be that ‘capture capitalism’ has demonstrably failed. And the political masters of ‘capture capitalism’, rather than change course from their suicidal pursuits, would rather entrench further bullshit, whilst their favored greedy oligarchs repair to their sieges to eat one another as the madding crowds advance.
Proscribing so-called ‘freedoms’ on the spurious basis of security (a euphemism for the keeping of secrets) seems to be their easiest m.o.
Laws are written by the powerful, assisted by the confused, it’s all about control. Nothing has changed and human history suggests nothing ever will.
Thanks Canguru – point taken. Whilst maintaining my rage I will endeavour to do so “as elegantly, concisely, interestingly, as possible.” You set a good example.
@ Clakka, small edit for you – Vulture Capitalism in lieu of ‘capture capitalism’?
As for all the frothing at the mouth by the ‘status quo’ mob, they can and never will have the capacity to own what anyone can originally think; they have to resort to restrictive legal contracts which verge on ‘restrictive trade’, unbalanced NDA’s which tie the hands of former employees for the better part of a decade and every other form of ‘gaslighting’ to maintain their cashflows.
There’s always some unknown organic aspect that’s bubbling away under the surface that will undo everything that these geniuses forget about.