Mary Kostakidis stood with Julian Assange when others stayed silent. After two years of legal action over her own speech, thousands of Australians returned that solidarity when she needed it.

Gabriel Shipton

I have known Mary Kostakidis for years. We met through the campaign to free my brother Julian Assange.

Mary supported Julian when much of the media had turned against him. During the years when he was isolated and smeared, many journalists who had built stories and careers on his work kept their distance. Mary stood beside him.

She spoke at rallies, attended our events and joined panels about his case. She used her name and platform because she believed that publishing truthful information should not cost a person their freedom. Her support gave our family strength during a long campaign when victories were scarce.

Last August, I saw that courage again when Sydney marched across the Harbour Bridge for Gaza.

Before the march, I met Julian, Stella and their boys at Mary’s apartment. Rain was pouring down. We pulled on raincoats, opened umbrellas and began walking towards the assembly point. Along the way we stopped at a convenience store to buy a couple more umbrellas, paying the usual emergency premium for the privilege.

We joined hundreds of thousands of people filling the bridge and the streets leading to it. Mary walked at the front with Julian and other public figures, including journalist Antoinette Lattouf. The rain kept falling as the crowd stretched back towards the city.

People had come to demand an end to the killing and starvation in Gaza, and to push the Australian government to act. Mary was prepared to put herself at the front, as she had done for Julian.

By then, she had already spent a year defending herself against legal action over two posts on X.

Two posts, two years

On 11 September, the Federal Court discontinued Alon Cassuto’s proceeding against Mary by consent, with no order as to costs. The trial scheduled for November will not take place.

Cassuto, chief executive of the Zionist Federation of Australia, brought the proceeding under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The court never ruled on the merits or decided whether Mary’s posts were unlawful. Under the consent order, each side bore its own costs. Mary had still spent two years preparing her defence, reading pleadings and discovery, briefing lawyers and raising money to meet the costs – time that will never be returned to her.

She said such a case could cost an ordinary Australian their home. The proceeding ended, but she will not get those two years back.

I know what a long legal process takes out of a person and their family. Julian lost more than 14 years to investigations, court proceedings and imprisonment. The pressure did not begin with a verdict. It accumulated through delay, uncertainty and the cost of reaching the next hearing.

The cases were different, but I recognised the damage caused by years of legal process before any final decision.

Mary’s refusal to retreat drew people to her campaign. Her supporters knew that she had taken risks for others. They were willing to take a risk for her.

The Information Rights Project, which grew out of the fight to free Julian, organised a petition signed by 10,348 Australians. We travelled to Canberra twice and raised Mary’s case across 16 meetings at Parliament House. Supporters contributed to her legal fund and spoke publicly when much of the media industry stayed quiet.

Mary’s case forced working journalists to ask whether their employer would protect them, whether they could fund their own defence and how many years they could afford to spend fighting over two social media posts.

The chilling effect happens in those private decisions. A reporter drops a contentious line of inquiry. An editor decides a story carries too much legal risk. The public never sees the article that was abandoned.

Thin protection for speech

Australia gives journalists little constitutional shelter. The implied freedom of political communication restricts government power; it does not give a journalist a personal right to invoke against a private litigant.

That often leaves journalists dependent on an employer, personal wealth or donations from the public. The law must protect people from racial discrimination. But years of litigation and unrecovered costs can punish public-interest speech before a court rules on its legality.

Mary had public standing and thousands of supporters. The next person may have neither. Australia needs independent legal, financial and advocacy support in place before a journalist or whistleblower exhausts their savings and health.

I will never forget what Mary did for Julian and our family. When legal action threatened her, thousands of people stood with Mary. The court order cannot return the years she lost, but the people who backed her made sure she did not face them alone.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/09/one-act-courage-calls-for-another/

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….