Published: 23 April 2026
Last updated: 23 April 2026
Two landmark cases against University of Sydney academics over their commentary about Israel-Palestine will test the limits of Australia's hate speech laws.
Jewish academics are seeking an injunction against, and a public apology from, Dr Nick Riemer and Professor John Keane over public statements and social media posts made after the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. They also want an apology from the University, which they say is vicariously responsible for the academics’ statements.
The two cases were initated last year by Joseph Toltz; a researcher specialising in Jewish music, Suzanne Rutland, a professor emerita and renowned historian; Yaniv Levy, an administrator in the Faculty of Medicine and Health; and Ariel Eisner, a member of AUJS, against Riemer, a Senior Lecturer in English, and John Keane, a Professor in Politics. They will be heard in the Federal Court in Sydney on May 5.
In the Riemer case, the applicants claim that after the attack by Hamas, Riemer made offensive public statements strongly critical of actions or positions he attributed to ‘Zionists’. They argue that as Jews who identify as Zionists or as Israelis, they were targeted by his comments.
In the Keane case, they claim that Keane’s posting of Hamas flags on his X page on October 8, 2023 imputed that Keane “celebrated, endorsed, supported and approved” the Hamas attacks. They also claim that Keane doxed more than a dozen Jewish academics at the University by posting their joint letter of complaint to him without their permission.
Comments4
debbie24 April at 06:21 pm
antizionism is a racist hate movement and the sooner it is recognised as such the better. It is high time the antizionist bigots were stopped. Antizionism kills Jews.
Susanne Gervay23 April at 10:16 pm
Michael’s articles are enlightening and important
Mark Light23 April at 08:49 am
Hamas proclaims that in the end of days all Jewish People ought be killed a satanic apocalyptic ideology which only NeoNazi Anti-Jews and anti-Humanity Malevolents would by this Hamas declaration support.
The Humanitarian Resolutions were in the UN resolution of 1947 November 29 to divide the Ancient Holy Land into a Jewish State a Palestinian State and an International State in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The majority of Palestinians rejected the Resolution but it was supported by the the great majority of States that had defeated Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan in 1945 .
Hamas has rejected any plan involving sharing of the Land involving the Jewish People having their own self -defence.
Holocaust Denial is widely supported by Hamas and the Youth are not educated about the Holocaust or Land Sharing Plans .
Wesley Parish23 April at 07:44 am
In reading this, I am reminded of some things I thought during an attack of paranoia. Because someone was an immigrant from a non-English-speaking land, and because I was suffering from paranoia at the time, I wondered if all of that particular nationality were the same. And that is the feeling I get from reading these charges laid against people who were speaking about policies that are frankly revolting. Which does raise the question – is an inclination towards republicanism in the non-US-party sense, proof of violent anti-British sentiment? If I declare that I wish Australia and New Zealand to become republics, does that imply that I am violently anti-British? Is it sane to speak of such a political position in terms of personal animosity towards a particular nationality or ethnicity? Did my support for East Timor’s independence prove that I am violently “anti-Indonesian”? The US declared in the 80s that to be opposed to nculear weapons was to be “anti-American”, with the implication that nuclear weapons were American citizens … All of these questions the lawyers who collaborated in these harassment lawsuits should’ve asked; not asking them I regard as legal malpractice.