Mandatory jail term for Nazi salute under new hate crime rules in Australia

[email protected]

That's a fair point. I didn't really post it thinking "this anecdote supports this law". I just think it's worth remembering the insidious manner in which these organisations encroach on society.

Obviously laws are intended to be policed through governmental force, but they're also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable.

For example, if a society legislates that the age of consent is 16, then people being charged with statutory rape is only a small part of the impact of that law. In Australia we literally have police giving presentations in schools to ensure that teenagers are aware of the laws that exist to protect them, and how something that might seem innocent to a 15 year old (like sending your crush a photo of your boobs or something), can have dire consequences. In summary, the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will.

Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they're gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but "soft" social intolerance very obviously is inadequate.

The thing is, these groups don't start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.

[email protected]

Because if you don't see the nazis, then it's OK that they're nazis

[email protected]

I say two

[email protected]

Actually I don't think so, because not only was it on a public stage, he also used racist dog whistles during his speech. If Musk had zeek-hailed like he did during that speech, in Australia, it's possible he would have gotten 12 months.

[email protected]

Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective? I'm not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons with non-violent offenders.

[email protected]

Generally speaking, espousing/engaging in the support of many harmful beliefs traditionally held by Nazis, and generally fascists more broadly since Nazism is just a branch of fascism, such as:

Supporting the actions of the Nazi party historically (e.g. saying the Nazis were right to kill Jewish people, saying "Heil Hitler," or doing the Nazi salute in a clearly deliberate manner)
Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal
Belief in a so called "master race" or the subordination of other races for the benefit of another/the nation
Advocating for the imprisonment/killing of homosexual/transgender individuals (the exact category of people at risk here can change over time, since fascism just re-selects a new group of people to attack once the former has been exterminated/ostracized enough)
Religious nationalism by any denomination
Advocating to eliminate unions for the benefit of corporations/the state
Ultra-nationalist rhetoric
Advocating for an expansion of the police state
Views of immigrants as sub-human
etc.

Practically speaking, I think it would probably make the most sense to judge whether somebody is a "Nazi" legally, by requiring at least a few of these tenets to be met before any trial could take place to prevent false imprisonment and the like, but as these views are objectively harmful to society, I don't believe they should be allowed to flourish, full stop.

If you don't support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people's land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.

[email protected]

Okay, let's throw that out then, and look at this objectively. Social shunning or unemployment does not discourage something more than imprisonment, because not only does imprisonment do all of those things, it also restricts individual autonomy altogether, and is thus a more harsh punishment than just denying someone business or employment. Stating that businesses rejecting Nazis will somehow be more of a punishment than arresting them is quite irrational.

Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what's socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them, whereas ideally, the law doesn't care how much money you have, and if you break it, you go to jail. Obviously the wealthy are able to skirt many regulations using money, but there are many that they can't. If a billionaire stabs someone in broad daylight, they go to jail regardless.

[email protected]

Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:

(referencing your other comment for consolidation purposes)

I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.

So what we've established is that:

You are intolerant of their views...
...and won't socially accept them...
...but if given the choice to force them to stop the behavior, you are no longer willing to not tolerate them, at that extent.

Your stance is categorically "I don't think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I'll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won't actually stop them from doing that."

So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?

[email protected]

Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective?

Fines are generally not as effective as we'd like, because fines only affect the poor. If you're wealthy, a fine is nothing to you. If a working class person espousing Nazi ideology were to be fined, say, $10,000, that could possibly make them bankrupt. If Elon Musk was fined $10,000 every time he said something directly aligned with the Nazis, he'd still be a multi-billionaire.

Now, sure, we can adjust fines as a percent of income, for instance, which helps, but generally speaking, the loss of autonomy (imprisonment) discourages bad behavior more than the loss of money, thus it tends to be a better way to prevent given behaviors from occurring.

I’m not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons [...]

I understand, and I agree to an extent, but I think if the problem is the for-profit prisons, we should focus on not having for-profit prisons, rather than not prosecuting what should be crimes just because the current prison system is quite bad.

[...] with non-violent offenders.

Nazis are inherently violent. They may not directly harm an individual, but the ideology revolves around harm coming to other groups. (e.g. how the Nazis killed Jewish people, advocated for the death of homosexuals, etc) When someone supports Nazism, they directly support an ideology that effectively mandates the death of many.

In the same way that I believe health insurance CEOs should be considered murderers when they deliberately implement bad algorithms that deny claims for the sake of shareholder profit, even though they didn't directly cause a death, I believe that people who support ideologies that can lead to the death of many should be treated maybe not as someone who has done a murder, but as someone who allowed the means for a murder to happen, knowingly, gladly, and deliberately.

[email protected]

If you actually wanted to understand my point, you would have a long time ago. It's not that complicated.

[email protected]

[…] [laws are] also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable. […]

[…] the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will. […]

That this isn't necessarily true: For example, if a society is ruled by a tyrannical government, then there is a divergence between the laws imposed on the citizenry, and what the citizenry thinks is socially just.

[email protected]

[…] Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate. […]

For my own reference, do you have any empirical sources to back up the claim that opinions sympathetic to fascism are accelerating? I'm not disputing your claim — I just like sources.

[email protected]

[…] The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.

Presumably, this is under the assumption that education and awareness are insufficient means to that end.

[email protected]

[…] not only does imprisonment do [social shunning] […]

I don't agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn't necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).

[email protected]

[…] Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them […]

Hm. Your statement "If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis" is an important distinction; however, I think it also crucially depends on the distribution of nazis throughout the populace (assuming the society in question in governed by a majoritarian democratic system). The statement "If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis", I think, infers the potential of monopolistic behavior in that ownership of the market becomes consolidated in the hands of those who are nazi-sympathetic. In this case, assuming the nazis were a minority of the populace, the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition ^[1]^; however, if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place ^[2]^, assuming they had a monopoly on power (as if they didn't, it's plausible that the minority with a monopoly on power would revolt), and I think it would be plausible that they would create a market regulating body that is favorable to nazi-sympathetic entities.

::: spoiler References

"Capitalism". Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-08T16:40Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:13Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism.
- ¶1.
  
  […] The defining characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, [competitive markets], price systems, recognition of property rights, self-interest, [economic freedom], work ethic, [consumer sovereignty], decentralized decision-making, profit motive, a financial infrastructure of money and investment that makes possible credit and debt, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor, production of commodities and services, and a strong emphasis on innovation and economic growth. […]
"Majoritarianism". Wikipedia. Published: 2025-01-15T01:23Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:19Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism.
- ¶1.
  
  Majoritarianism is a political philosophy or ideology with an agenda asserting that a majority, whether based on a religion, language, social class, or other category of the population, is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. […]
  :::

[email protected]

[…] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]

I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

[email protected]

[…] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?

It may depend on what you mean by "beneficial", but, generally, I'm not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more "positive" than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don't feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I'm simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

[email protected]

the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition

The government rarely actually steps in, even in cases of demonstrable monopolies. This is very easy to see in our world today, and will always be the case as long as you live in a capitalist system. Capitalism grants power to the capital holders by allowing them to buy the means of productions, restricting the power of workers to mobilize against corporate action, elect representatives not favorable to capital owners, etc. It causes anti-monopolistic tendencies to waver, because in a system built on being able to buy up businesses, capital concentration is the design, not just an unintended side effect.

if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place

A group of people do not need to be the majority of the population to hold drastically more wealth, and thus a direct ability to impact the choices of businesses. See: the top 1% of wealth holders owning 30% of wealth, and the bottom 50% of wealth holders owning just a few percentage points.

Critically though, we need to look at the possibility of such a drastically negative outcome occurring in both of our possible systems. In mine, Nazism simply is not given a chance from the start. It is not given the opportunity to even attempt a power grab, because those who publicly spread the ideology are imprisoned.

In yours, they are given the ability to spread their ideology, still get employment and buy goods at sympathetic businesses, can gain functional societal acceptance by accumulating wealth, and so on. Your system does less to stop Nazi ideology from spreading than mine does. It is fundamentally less hostile to Nazis.

Now, I'm going to try consolidating my responses to all your other replies in this one comment, since I want to try and keep this tidy.

I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

They can do so, but they are less effective. We as a society, generally, hold distaste for people who do murders. If we lived in a society where nobody was ever imprisoned for murder, would we see less murder? Of course not, because the only consequence to doing so would be social shunning, but you would still be free to do whatever else you please in your life, and if you're a person that doesn't care what people think of you, or can surround yourself in a community of like-minded murderers, then social shunning does nothing to disincentivize you from murdering more people. Imprisonment exists for a reason, that being it is more effective than other means of preventing behavior, such as social shunning.

The exact same logic applies to Nazism. The ideology, after spreading far enough and gaining power, inevitably leads to outcomes that most of us would find highly undesirable, such as the genocide of entire groups of individuals, and thus should be treated as such, with the strongest force possible to reduce the chance of it spreading by as much as possible.

I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).

Sorry if I was unclear by what I meant here. I meant specifically that imprisonment isolates you from the rest of society, by locking you up either in a cell block with very few other people to communicate with (relatively speaking) or by putting you in solitary, with no people to communicate with. You objectively have less ability to interact with other human beings, and have been "shunned" as a result. Or at least, you experience similar effects. (Social deprivation, being placed in situations only involving other people rejected from the common populace, etc) Again, apologies if I was unclear.

It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

I understand this point a lot, and I do think it's a quite justified opinion to have. If we can't be certain our views are moral, we want to do what requires the least harm to come to people, in case we're wrong.

This

I fear tyrannical overreach

is a good fear to have, but if this logic was applied consistently, then we wouldn't imprison anybody, for any offense, because we can't actually be 100% confident that we were making the right choice in imprisoning them. As I mentioned earlier, we already know what Nazi ideology leads to in the end, we've seen its effects before, and with the rise of fascism in America with Trump's second term, we're seeing it begin again.

Just like how we could observe that murder negatively impacts the wellbeing of local communities, and societies as a whole, we can observe that what tends to arise from Nazi rhetoric also produces those same outcomes. For instance, Trump's new executive orders are doing things like cutting billions in aid that currently keep many people alive in struggling countries, who are now likely to die from a lack of aid. His policies will be resulting in a significant shortfall in spending on critical programs people need to stay alive, like Medicare/Medicaid, are cutting funding for research that develops critical cures for people's health problems, he's actively stripping policies that level the playing field for disadvantaged groups which will only result in their overall relative share of wealth going down over time, not to mention his billionaire supporting policy that's actively funneling more of the few percentage points of wealth everyone not in the top 50% of people has to the top 1%, which will only make their lives harder.

We see the outcomes, more concrete moral biases we can often feel more confident in (e.g. less death is usually ideal, people should ideally be healthy and happy, etc) back up why those outcomes are wrong, so we can then feel confident in saying the thing that caused those outcomes should be legislated against.

If you believe Nazis are a harm to society, and we have all our concrete understanding of their misdeeds to back that up, then it is no different from any action we take against any other bad action to say that they should be imprisoned for the harm we know they do to society.

I understand it's difficult to support something that you could end up being wrong on, that ends up overreaching, but if you do nothing more than the social shunning that already happened just recently right up through when Trump entered the Oval Office, then you get fascism, and we're seeing, yet again, the harm that fascism causes.

agnos.is Forums

Mandatory jail term for Nazi salute under new hate crime rules in Australia