Regulating Speech: A Comparative Analysis of Australia’s Racial Vilification Offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law

Wong, KH

Regulating Speech: A Comparative Analysis of Australia’s Racial Vilification Offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law

Wong, KH

Permalink

Publisher:: Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Pragmatics Research, 8, (2), pp. 483-509
Issue Date:: 2026-04-07

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (513.17 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wong, KH
dc.date.accessioned	2026-05-07T23:25:58Z
dc.date.available	2026-05-07T23:25:58Z
dc.date.issued	2026-04-07
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Pragmatics Research, 8, (2), pp. 483-509
dc.identifier.issn	2656-8020
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/194906
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p>This article undertakes a comparative critical historiographical analysis of Australia’s proposed 2026 racial vilification offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL) to examine how legal regimes regulate speech through differing constructions of harm, threat, and legitimacy. Drawing on Flowerdew’s Critical Discourse Historiography (CDH), the study approaches law as a historically situated discourse that encodes assumptions about state power, social fragility, and political belonging. Through close textual analysis of statutory language and associated discourse, the article examines how the presence or absence of contextual exemptions shapes the legal boundaries of punishable expression, revealing a divergence in the presupposed ontology of power underpinning the two regimes. Although the proposed Australian offence was withdrawn, Australia’s hate speech framework operates within a liberal-democratic tradition that presupposes a strong state governing a pluralistic society, in which exemptions and contextual interpretation function as mechanisms for balancing harm mitigation against expressive freedom. By contrast, Hong Kong’s NSL presupposes a weak and vulnerable state, foregrounding sovereignty and security as overriding values and discursively constructing dissent as an existential threat. The absence of meaningful exemptions within the NSL facilitates a form of performative citizenship, in which loyalty is enforced through the policing of alternative political narratives. By situating both regimes within their historical and ideological trajectories, the article argues that exemptions are not peripheral technicalities but central discursive mechanisms that determine whether speech regulation functions as social governance or regime preservation, offering Hong Kong’s experience as a cautionary lens for debates on speech regulation in liberal democracies.</jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Pragmatics Research
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.18326/jopr.v8i2.483-509
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title	Regulating Speech: A Comparative Analysis of Australia’s Racial Vilification Offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	8
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2026-05-07T23:25:57Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	8
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

This article undertakes a comparative critical historiographical analysis of Australia’s proposed 2026 racial vilification offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL) to examine how legal regimes regulate speech through differing constructions of harm, threat, and legitimacy. Drawing on Flowerdew’s Critical Discourse Historiography (CDH), the study approaches law as a historically situated discourse that encodes assumptions about state power, social fragility, and political belonging. Through close textual analysis of statutory language and associated discourse, the article examines how the presence or absence of contextual exemptions shapes the legal boundaries of punishable expression, revealing a divergence in the presupposed ontology of power underpinning the two regimes. Although the proposed Australian offence was withdrawn, Australia’s hate speech framework operates within a liberal-democratic tradition that presupposes a strong state governing a pluralistic society, in which exemptions and contextual interpretation function as mechanisms for balancing harm mitigation against expressive freedom. By contrast, Hong Kong’s NSL presupposes a weak and vulnerable state, foregrounding sovereignty and security as overriding values and discursively constructing dissent as an existential threat. The absence of meaningful exemptions within the NSL facilitates a form of performative citizenship, in which loyalty is enforced through the policing of alternative political narratives. By situating both regimes within their historical and ideological trajectories, the article argues that exemptions are not peripheral technicalities but central discursive mechanisms that determine whether speech regulation functions as social governance or regime preservation, offering Hong Kong’s experience as a cautionary lens for debates on speech regulation in liberal democracies.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/194906