Hate‑speech Laws Theologize Courts

Australia’s 18C hate‑speech litigation reportedly forced a secular court to decide whether parts of Islamic scripture, as explained by a cleric, were 'worthy of respect in a democratic society.' Expert religious witnesses were called on both sides, effectively turning a speech case into theological arbitration. — If hate‑speech regimes push courts into judging religious doctrine, they risk compromising state neutrality, chilling scholarship, and turning law into de facto blasphemy enforcement.