WA’s ‘post and boast’ proposal could punish me for my reporting
One legal expert said the laws ‘would have an extremely chilling effect on free speech in Western Australia’.
I was driving through the Perth CBD last year when I got caught in traffic. A couple of Gaza protesters had parked a truck across Wellington St and locked themselves to the roof. I wasn’t involved in that protest — I just happened to be there — but I got out and filmed a quick video that was posted to socials for a new media outlet I’ve co-founded, The Last Place on Earth.
A few months later, I was first on the scene when someone spraypainted clown makeup and a swastika on the office of a WA MP who’d just legally changed his name to “Aussie Trump”. I got a few photos and posted an exclusive news story on our website. That story was picked up by The West Australian, commercial TV and the ABC.
Both of these examples of fairly basic media work could soon be punishable by up to three years in prison if the WA government gets its way.
Today, the Western Australian Parliament is set to debate new “post and boast” laws that the state’s Labor government says will target “crimfluencers”, aka vulnerable kids stealing cars so they can post the chase on TikTok.
However, constitutional lawyers, civil society groups and environmentalists spoke out yesterday about another consequence of these laws passing in their current form: the further criminalisation of peaceful protest and a threat to media freedom.
This new legislation makes it illegal to post unlawful activity online in a manner intended to “boast”, “glorify”, or “encourage others to engage in similar conduct”. Specifically, sharing images of minor offences such as trespass, property damage, or unlawful assembly will now be criminalised in a move that seems specifically designed to suppress political protest.
If it’s not intentional, it’s extremely lazy lawmaking, given that Associate Professor Murray Wesson, a constitutional law researcher at the University of Western Australia, says the new legislation is likely unconstitutional.
Know something?
Contact us securely via our tip-off form, or via our Signal and WhatsApp using the number +61 432 717 297.
“The extraordinarily broad nature of the offence has the potential to curtail and chill free political communication in Western Australia, in a manner that is incompatible with the constitutionally guaranteed implied freedom of political communication,” he said in an analysis shared with me.
According to Tom Penglis, a lawyer and co-founder of the WA Justice Association, the proposed laws could also apply to people who simply reshare content previously posted online by others.
“I have no doubt this would constitute ‘disseminating’ relevant material,” he told me. “The definition of ‘disseminate’ is intentionally extremely broad.”
Under the proposed legislation, someone merely resharing my reel of the Palestine protest could be liable — even if no-one was ultimately convicted for the original incident, or if it had happened overseas.
“No matter where the conduct occurs in the world, if the conduct constitutes a ‘relevant offence’ under WA law, then it is captured by the bill,” Penglis said. “So, if I shared footage of anti-ICE protests in the US, or people violently protesting against an oppressive authoritarian regime, that material would be captured.”
The scope of the legislation isn’t even limited to sharing material publicly.
“This doesn’t just apply to posting on social media. I mean, it certainly applies to direct messaging, texting your mum, your dad, your mate,” Penglis continued. “In my opinion, it would have an extremely chilling effect on free speech in Western Australia.”
There is a carve-out in the new laws that provides a defence for journalists or news publishers, but I can’t wait to see the Perth Magistrates Court try to decide what is classified as “media” in 2025.
As a founder of a new media operation and a media advisor to direct action campaigns like Disrupt Burrup Hub, sharing contentious content has been my stock in trade for years. Two years ago, I faced years in prison for refusing to reveal my sources to WA Police, shortly after the ABC surrendered its sources for a Four Corners story about climate protest.
This legislation would have effectively criminalised the entire 2023 Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign captured by Four Corners. But I’m even more concerned about the impact on freedom of expression, and especially media freedom. Is Hannah Ferguson a legitimate journalist? Is Bari Weiss a legitimate journalist? Am I?
The WA Greens, who hold the balance of power in the upper house, have vowed to refer the “post and boast” legislation to a parliamentary committee for further scrutiny. Amusingly, the Liberal-led opposition said yesterday it would support the Greens’ review, but only because it believes the legislation — which it also supports — doesn’t yet go far enough.
I’ve never called myself a journalist, but I might have to start.
This article was first published in The Last Place on Earth.
Are you worried that “post and boast” laws could infringe upon media freedom?
We want to hear from you. Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au to be published in Crikey. Please include your full name. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Comments