‘Deeply perverse’: US State Department criticises Albanese’s hate speech bill

Washington: A senior US State Department official has criticised Australia’s proposed new hate speech laws, calling the bill “clumsy” and predicting it could lead to deeply perverse outcomes by letting extremists off the hook while criminalising legitimate opinion.

The critique reflects a growing determination by the Trump administration to call out what it views as blatant attacks on free speech by allies – especially in Europe and the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere in the West.

Sarah Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, was responding to a post on X by Australian activist Drew Pavlou, who brought her attention to a clause in the bill that gives an exemption to people who quote directly from religious texts.

Pavlou, who opposes the laws, characterised the clause as “a special carve out ... to allow Muslim extremists to continue preaching hate so long as they can argue that they are directly quoting or referencing” the Koran.

Rogers, one of six undersecretaries who report to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said she hoped that was not what Australia intended.

“A statute that imprisons you for calling to deport jihadist extremists – but provides safe harbor if you *are* a jihadist extremist – would be deeply perverse. Let’s hope this isn’t what Australia intends,” Rogers wrote.

“This could be a clumsy effort to avoid the disgraces seen in Europe+UK, where citizens are jailed for quoting the Bible or even praying silently.

“But the problem with ‘hate speech’ laws – one problem of many – is that they’re enforced by the kinds of people who coddle actual violent zealots, so long as they seem subaltern.”

In an additional post also referring to the proposed Australian laws, Rogers said: “Religious freedom is a core value of our administration, but protecting speech *only* if it’s religious, while arresting people for secular rejoinders, may distort the public sphere in ways that even progressive censorship enthusiasts dislike.”

Responding to another X user who claimed the Australian bill contained no protections for “white Aussies or Christians”, Rogers said: “Still digging into this, but that’s egregious if true.”

This masthead requested further comment from Rogers.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the carve out yesterday by referring to the Old Testament, implying that without an exemption, someone reading from that document would be in violation of the proposed laws.

But he said the government wanted to avoid unintended consequences and had referred the legislation to a committee.

Responding to Rogers’ comments on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the government’s proposed laws sought to get the balance right – “cracking down on hate speech without undermining freedom of speech or religion”.

“The government is now consulting broadly on the legislation, hearing from the public and working across the parliament to get this right,” the spokesperson said.

The laws are being introduced to combat antisemitism and other forms of hatred following the December 14 terrorist attack at Bondi Beach that targeted Jews.

Some Coalition figures have pointed to the same flaws in the bill as Rogers. Western Australian MP Ben Small said the exemption could allow Islamist preachers to foment hate while imperilling criticism of radical Islam.

“The test for this legislation is whether or not it makes it harder for radical Islam to spread in Australia. This legislation fails that test by making it more difficult for secular criticism,” Small said.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.