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

[email protected]

Freedom of speech was created so citizens could feel safe criticising the government, not so they could spout hatred about people who were different to them. You can say whatever the fuck you want, up until it makes others unsafe, that doesn't mean oh they say bad words and im offended, or i don't like them promoting that candidate over the one i like that has christian* values. No, that means you words and actions intentionally incite hatred and violence.

All this hiding behind free speech shite thats been happening for a very long time has just given the shit cunts the courage to be shit cunts. And now because the US shat the bed and its been spreading the world, the rest of the world needs to sanitise.

[email protected]

You are intentionally mischaracterizing my stance and then being preachy and condescending about it. It's pretty annoying so I'm going to move on.

[email protected]

Obviously not.

[email protected]

That's a fair and accurate statement.

"Aboriginals don't have rights" is false, hyperbolic, and unhelpful.

[email protected]

Any good tech companies in Australia? How hard are the citizenship requirements if you avoid all the Mel Gibsons?

[email protected]

I can't see this actually happening since people who continue to commit crime, are re-released on bail.

[email protected]

Redefining the freedom of speech can be a slippery slope. It will depend upon who is in power and their personal views. Hate speech is something that can be targetted. There would need to be statutory limitations to prevent misuse of the legislative principles. If the Germans can do it right, so can we, wherever we live.

[email protected]

Slippery slope

[email protected]

time has just given the shit cunts the courage to be shit cunts

There's something to be said for that, knowing they are shit cunts.

[email protected]

Maybe Musk should take one of his Boeing Cyberplanes to Australia

[email protected]

Labor got me two pay rises, basically pays for my daily coffee.

[email protected]

That's just in this term though.

There's a ratchet effect over many decades.

[email protected]

I don't think this behavior should be socially tolerated; however, I don't think it's a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.

[email protected]

This isn't WWII, we aren't in war. By letting go of free speech you are letting goverment tell you what is ok to talk about, and by doing that you allow them to expand taboo. In times of need like today, that is necessary evil, however normally that is something out of horror.

For example, whether you agree or not, at the end of WW II communism was seen as almost as bad as nazizm, and in USA I think, may be wrong, that it was seen as worse. What's bad is that every social policy is coupled with it mentally. If free speech wasn't a thing, USA could tell it's citizens that talking about nazizm, communism, social policies or unions is strictly forbidden under threat of, at least, financial fine.

[email protected]

I think a distinction can be drawn between this and what Australia is reported to have done. Imo, this is an example of social intolerance, and I'd argue that there is a sharp distinction between that and policing behavior through the use of governmental force. So, I don't see this excerpt as being a supportive argument for Australia's new law; I see it as being an example of how the issue can be handled socially.

[email protected]

My thoughts exactly. I have absolutely no sympathy for Nazis, or anyone else who thinks mass murder and genocide were good policy.
But one of the things that makes a free society different from Nazi Germany, is free expression. If we limit free expression to only things the people in charge want expressed, no matter how noble the intent that starts us down a very dark path very quickly.

The way we fight Nazis and racism is not by beating them up or jailing them. It's by teaching each other and our children why they are wrong, by learning and understanding what it is like to have racism directed against you. And thus, we defeat racism not with force but with empathy.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the sort of policy that would make Hitler proud. It's the sort of policy that would be enacted in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.

[email protected]

I don’t think it’s a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.

Oh it absolutely is.

If you don't think it should be socially tolerated, then great, regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn't just "I don't like you, please stop, but also I won't do anything to you if you keep doing it."

Furthermore, and this is something you'll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don't tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn't come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

(This mini comic explains the paradox well, as well.)

[email protected]

[…] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]

I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like "I wont allow you into my place of business". I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that's damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.

[email protected]

Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

I would like to reiterate that I am not advocating for tolerance. It's quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism ^[1]^, which I personally espouse.

::: spoiler References

Title: "Liberalism". Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:47Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
- ¶1
  
  […] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. […]
  :::

[email protected]

Corps always swing right...darn.

agnos.is Forums

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