An Australian Federal Court has determined that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) illegally terminated journalist Antoinette Lattouf following her critical social media post regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Australian Court Rules Journalist's Dismissal Over Israel Critique Unlawful

Australian Court Rules Journalist's Dismissal Over Israel Critique Unlawful
A recent verdict supports the claims of a journalist unjustly dismissed due to her stance on Israel's actions in Gaza.
In a landmark ruling on June 25, 2025, the Federal Court of Australia found that the ABC, a prominent taxpayer-funded public broadcaster, had unlawfully fired Antoinette Lattouf after she expressed her views on social media concerning Israel's military operations in Gaza. In December 2023, the ABC removed Lattouf from the air after she shared an Instagram post referencing a Human Rights Watch report alleging that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war against Gaza’s civilians.
Lattouf brought the complaint forward, claiming that her dismissal was a violation of her rights to freely express political opinions. The ABC argued that Lattouf breached social media guidelines and claimed her dismissal should not be considered a firing since she worked as a freelance contractor. However, Justice Darryl Rangiah ruled that her political expression constituted an illegal reason for her removal, violating Australian labor laws. The court ordered ABC to compensate her with 70,000 Australian dollars (approximately $45,500) while further legal proceedings are expected to determine additional financial penalties.
Her removal sparked significant debate within the ABC regarding the coverage of the Israel-Gaza war, especially given that Lattouf had only recently been assigned as a fill-in host for the morning radio show "Sydney Mornings." Shortly after her appointment, the broadcaster faced a wave of complaints described by the judge as an “orchestrated campaign” questioning Lattouf's impartiality and labeling her as antisemitic.
This ruling highlights ongoing tensions within media organizations regarding editorial policies and freedom of expression, particularly in relation to sensitive political matters.