Australian anti-trans activist Kirralie Smith has been ordered to pay a $95,000 fine and issue a public apology after a landmark court ruling found she unlawfully vilified two transgender women who played football with their local clubs. The decision, handed down in August 2025 and finalized this week, marks the first time a court in New South Wales has found someone guilty of unlawful vilification of a person for being trans under the state’s laws, according to QNews and LGBTQ Nation.
The court’s judgment focused on a series of social media posts Smith published on X (formerly Twitter) and other platforms over several months between 2022 and 2024. In these posts, Smith not only identified the two women by name and shared their photos, but also revealed the locations of their football teams. The posts, which included calls for men to intervene in women’s games and videos of men dressed as women playing football, were found to incite hatred and serious contempt, as reported by LGBTQ Nation.
Smith, who leads the anti-trans group Binary Australia, has long advocated against trans inclusion in women’s sports and has campaigned for a pause on gender-affirming healthcare and a federal inquiry into trans healthcare. Binary Australia, according to LGBTQ Nation, claims that “there is a ‘biological reality that there are two complementary sexes. Equal, but different.’”
The court’s ruling followed complaints from the two trans athletes, who reported being subjected to “horrendous harassment online, including being publicly identified, outed and misgendered,” said Heather Corkhill, Legal Director of Equality Australia, in a statement quoted by both QNews and LGBTQ Nation. Corkhill added, “People who target vulnerable minorities to incite hatred and fear need to be called out and stopped. Smith and her supporters are out of step with the law, out of step with community values, and out of step with modern Australia.”
Deputy Chief Magistrate Sharon Freund, who presided over the case, found that the vilification provisions under New South Wales law are valid and do not infringe on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. Smith’s attempts to defend her posts as protected political speech were rejected by the court, with the magistrate ruling that her comments were “disproportionate” and “not made in good faith.” According to LGBTQ Nation, the magistrate stated that the posts were “capable of inciting serious contempt.”
The penalties imposed on Smith are substantial: she must pay $55,000 AUD to one of the women and $40,000 AUD to the other, totaling $95,000 AUD (approximately $63,000 USD). The fine must be paid within 28 days of the December 6, 2025, ruling, or it will double, as Smith herself noted on X. In addition, Smith is required to post a public apology across all social media pages and websites she controls, pinning it to the top where possible, as detailed by both QNews and LGBTQ Nation.
Smith’s posts and activism have not only led to the vilification ruling but also to legal restrictions on her conduct. Earlier in 2025, one of the trans women obtained an Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO)—Australia’s equivalent of a restraining order—against Smith. The APVO prohibits Smith from assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, approaching, or contacting the woman or the football clubs involved. The court described Smith’s actions as “ongoing behaviors which were objectively threatening.” Smith appealed the APVO at the New South Wales Supreme Court and lost, as reported by QNews.
Throughout the proceedings, Smith has shown little remorse, instead presenting herself as a victim of unjust censorship. In her X bio, she now describes herself as “Guilty of ‘unlawful vilification’ for identifying males in female sport,” treating the court’s finding almost as a badge of honor. She has publicly stated, “It is disappointing that the word ‘woman’ has been redefined to include males and that the words ‘violence’ & ‘vilification’ have been applied to speaking the truth about information in the public domain. Males should never be permitted to participate in female sport. As a registered third-party political campaigner and a woman, I should have the right to advocate for this without being penalised.”
Smith has made it clear that she intends to appeal the latest ruling, continuing a pattern that has already seen her challenge and lose previous court decisions, including the APVO. Despite the financial penalty, it remains uncertain whether the fine will have a significant impact on her or her activism. LGBTQ Nation notes that a prior crowdfunding campaign raised $250,000 AUD for Smith’s legal fees, and her social media posts continue to attract pledges of financial support from followers.
The case has drawn attention to the boundaries of free speech and political advocacy in Australia, especially in the context of minority rights and online harassment. Deputy Chief Magistrate Freund’s ruling emphasized that vilification laws are designed to protect vulnerable groups from targeted abuse and that political communication does not provide a shield for inciting hatred or contempt. As Heather Corkhill of Equality Australia put it, “The court has made it clear: online posts made in bad faith that incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule regardless of the harm it causes cannot be disguised as ‘political communication.’ Not only is that argument baseless — it’s against the law.”
For the two trans athletes at the center of the case, the court’s decision represents a measure of justice after enduring what advocates described as relentless and harmful harassment. The ruling also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be treated in the future, reinforcing the message that targeting individuals for their gender identity—especially in the context of sports participation—will not be tolerated under New South Wales law.
While Smith and her supporters argue that their campaign is a matter of free speech and the defense of women’s sports, critics point out that such activism often crosses the line into personal attacks and public shaming, with real-world consequences for those targeted. The debate is likely to continue, especially as Smith pursues further appeals and as other activists and groups watch the legal landscape evolve.
The story underscores the ongoing tension in Australia and elsewhere between advocacy, free speech, and the rights of marginalized communities. As the legal and cultural battles play out, the experience of the two trans athletes—and the court’s firm response—remind the public of the stakes involved when online discourse turns into targeted harassment and vilification.
