Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Can criticism of Christianity be prosecuted under Australian blasphemy laws?
Executive Summary
Criticism of Christianity is not currently prosecuted under a standing national Australian blasphemy law, and recent reporting shows no clear revival of classic blasphemy prosecutions; however, contemporary state-level laws and proposed reforms addressing hate, harassment, or specific conduct (for example, restrictions on certain prayers in New South Wales) create context where speech that targets religion could face legal consequences under other statutes. The available reporting from September 2025 shows debates about laws that affect speech—such as proposed “post and boast” rules and state measures addressing harms to transgender people—but none of the cited sources documents an active prosecution for blasphemy against mainstream Christian criticism nor a reintroduced general blasphemy statute [1] [2].
1. What people are claiming and why it sounds alarming
Observers and some commentators have asserted that criticism of Christianity could be prosecuted under Australian law, often conflating historic blasphemy statutes with modern hate or conduct regulations. The recent New South Wales decision to ban certain prayers aimed at transgender people has been reported as effectively criminalising specific religious speech, which fuels the claim that Christian criticism generally might be exposed to prosecution; the article explicitly links the measure to regulating religiously framed conduct toward transgender individuals rather than reinstating a broad blasphemy offense [1]. Other reporting on proposed Western Australian reforms discusses risks to free speech but does not assert that blasphemy prosecutions are imminent [2].
2. What the cited sources actually say about laws and prosecutions
The sources describe three distinct threads: a New South Wales measure limiting targeted prayers related to transgender people, a proposed Western Australian “post and boast” law addressing glorification of illegal acts, and unrelated criminal prosecutions such as a Nazi-salute charge in Queensland. None of the pieces present evidence of a revived or active blasphemy prosecution for criticizing Christianity; instead they document targeted legal interventions aimed at protecting vulnerable groups or public order, not enforcing religious orthodoxy [1] [2] [3]. The reporting therefore supports a conclusion that existing or proposed laws may affect some religious speech but do not amount to a general blasphemy regime [2] [4].
3. How defenders of free expression frame the issue
Commentators and legal critics emphasize that laws aimed at preventing harm—such as those curbing targeted harassment or the glorification of crime—can have chilling effects on speech when drafted or enforced broadly. The Western Australia coverage of the “post and boast” proposal highlights democratic and free-speech concerns, arguing that vague or sweeping provisions could capture politically or religiously motivated expression without being nominally about blasphemy [2]. Reporting in other outlets raises parallel concerns about workplace and social-media discipline, showing a public debate about boundaries between protected expression and punishable conduct [5].
4. How supporters of restrictions justify them
Supporters of the NSW measure and similar rules frame them as necessary to protect vulnerable groups from harassment and from speech framed as religious practice that inflicts harm; the reporting on the NSW ban on certain prayers positions the policy as a targeted response to specific conduct rather than a tool to punish theological critique [1]. Proponents of laws like the “post and boast” proposal argue they address concrete harms—glorification of illegal acts or incitement—contending that narrowly tailored laws can preserve public safety while still respecting legitimate religious discourse [2].
5. What’s missing from the reporting and why it matters
None of the articles provides legal analysis demonstrating that ordinary criticism of Christian doctrine would meet the thresholds of these state laws; the reporting lacks explicit cases where doctrinal critique was prosecuted under hate, harassment, or other contemporary statutes. That omission matters because public perception conflates targeted regulatory measures with a revival of blasphemy prosecutions, obscuring whether prosecutions would hinge on content, intent, or ancillary conduct. The media pieces thus illuminate policy debates but do not prove that general theological criticism is currently criminalised [1] [2] [5].
6. Bottom line: what the evidence supports and what to watch next
The evidence in the cited September 2025 reporting supports a cautious conclusion: Australia is not prosecuting routine criticism of Christianity under a renewed blasphemy law, but state-level rules and proposed reforms create legal terrains where religiously framed speech could be restricted if it crosses into targeted harassment or other prohibited conduct. Watch for legal test cases and detailed government explanations of enforcement priorities; those developments would show whether speech restrictions are applied to theological criticism or narrowly to conduct affecting vulnerable groups [1] [2].