nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/1eb48c8f22581fcf DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 240201s2024||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/1eb48c8f22581fcf doi eng 342 23 Hicks, Liz Author aut Civil Disobedience and Judicial Theories of Political Change - Kvelde v New South Wales Hicks, Liz Verfassungsblog 2024-02-01 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This post considers the latest episode of Australia’s engagement with civil disobedience under its constitutionally ‘implied freedom of political communication’ — Kvelde v New South Wales (‘Kvelde’). In Kvelde a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court followed the tendency of some High Court judges of reducing the democratic value of civil disobedience to binary terms: if a form of political speech is already illegal, the Court will not engage with further legislative acts seeking to increase penalties for it. I describe this as the ‘binary approach.’ I argue that the binary approach reflects a particular judicial theory of political change not necessarily prescribed by the freedom, that is also out of step with historical Australian political practices. CC BY-SA 4.0 Australien Civil Disobedience Implied freedom (DE-588)4003900-6 gnd Australien Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/civil-disobedience-and-judicial-theories-of-political-change/ raw object