The Brisbane-based visual creator known as Nordacious said he received a phone call from the Queensland Police Service on March 25 after someone complained about artworks on his website. According to the artist, the officers told him the complaint alleged his pieces contained or referenced the prohibited expressions that the state government recently criminalised. Faced with that warning, he removed three items from sale while he sought legal advice, though social posts featuring the images remain visible online for the moment. The episode has drawn attention to how the new legislation is being interpreted and applied to creative work.
One of the removed images shows the public arrest of 18-year-old activist Bonnie Carter wearing a singlet printed with the phrase “from the river to the sea”, another depicts singer John Farnham with a slice of watermelon and the words “River to the Sea”, and a third caricatures Premier David Crisafulli with a slogan about deciding what can be said from “Brisbane River to Moreton Bay”. Hillier, who produces pop-art with political themes, says those pieces were made as commentary on unfolding events. He emphasised that only one design came close to printing the full banned phrase and that removal was a cautious step while he clarifies legal boundaries.
The law and its limits
The new Queensland legislation specifically outlaws the public use of the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” when the conduct can reasonably be expected to make a member of the public feel menaced, harassed or offended. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. The text of the law does include a list of reasonable excuses such as artistic, religious, educational or news reporting purposes, but those defences place the onus on the accused to prove their use falls within the exception. That legal structure is one reason artists and commentators say they need clear guidance before continuing to display or sell politically charged work.
Police action and broader enforcement
Police confirmed to media that they are investigating a complaint involving references to prohibited expressions displayed online and said inquiries are ongoing. The same legislation has already produced several enforcement episodes: protesters outside parliament on March 11 included the first arrest under the new rules, with Bonnie Carter later cautioned and another protester, Liam Parry, charged and due to appear in court on April 8. Separate matters involving banners and public slogans have also been scrutinised, and a third charged person from a March 18 protest faces court on April 14. Artists worry that these examples set a precedent for broader application.
Street murals and public art
Street artist Scott Marsh recently painted a mural in south Brisbane combining John Farnham imagery, the words “river to the sea” and a watermelon motif; police said they were making inquiries about that work too. Marsh posted a commentary suggesting artists now risk jail for publicly painting certain lyrics or phrases, reflecting a wider concern among creators that public art — traditionally a space for political expression — may be curtailed. The interplay between street art, public protest and criminal law highlights tensions around who decides the boundary between legitimate political speech and unlawful incitement.
Artistic caution and legal uncertainty
Hillier told reporters he removed the listed items after seeking counsel and that he wants to continue advocating for Palestinian rights while avoiding criminal exposure. He described the situation as a “deeply sad place for democracy” and warned that satire and protest art are central to political dialogue. Others in the community note that some Jewish groups view the phrases as antisemitic, while different voices argue the terms express solidarity with Palestinians and calls to end oppression; this divide complicates public understanding of context and intent when artworks use contested symbolism.
What this means for creators and the public debate
The episode involving Nordacious illustrates how legislation aimed at curbing incitement can intersect unexpectedly with creative practice. For artists, an immediate consequence is increased legal risk when producing or selling politically charged work, particularly where phrases or symbols are newly criminalised. For the broader public, these developments have raised urgent questions about the balance between protecting communities from hate and preserving space for political dissent and artistic commentary. As investigations proceed and court dates arrive, creators and observers will watch closely for how courts interpret prohibited expressions and the scope of the law’s reasonable excuses.