Mandatory jail term for Nazi salute under new hate crime rules in Australia
-
I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech
Yes, it does. The extent to which I support any individual's freedom of speech only extends until that speech causes demonstrable harm. Unfettered free speech has no beneficial social utility compared to free speech that has restrictions for things that cause great social harm.
People often get caught up in the idea of "free speech = good, therefore anything I disagree with should still be allowed to be said," when it doesn't actually provide any value to let them do so, and actually harms society in the process. People have the right to say almost anything they want, but if we know the things they're saying inevitably lead to fascist systems of power that oppress and kill millions, then restricting their free speech as much as possible is always justifiable, because doing so directly reduces the chances of people dying unjustifiably.
-
Oh right, you are pro criminal. I forgot that you defend the rapist.
-
It's not really an assumption. Clearly, education and awareness has been insufficient.
-
Sure ok but in a democracy the presumption is that law makers have the support of the public.
In this specific case most (maybe all?) Australian state's and territories have already enacted similar laws, the federal law just reinforces them. That doesn't really seem tyrannical?
-
-
Would, say, an actor playing a Nazi officer in a movie be protected from this?
-
because giving them wiggle room in the law only for them to destroy that legal protection for everyone else only leads to disaster.
matter of fact it did in every country that ever had fascism take root. they openly want to take actual freedom away for everyone else.
-
You called me authoritatian for mentioning police. Your idea of having no police is a very pro-rape thing to say. If you don't like it then don't call me authoritarian for mentioning law enforcement.
-
-
What you want is the government to enforce what you think the standards should be.
-
What you will get is the government enforcing what the government thinks the standards should be.
I disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, and I cite the results of the last election is the foundation of my own.
-
-
-
-
-
For instance, if someone says the words "Heil Hitler" while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn't exactly room for a fascist to go "weeeeelllll
Then "HH" isn't a violation. "88" isn't a violation. They avoid the specific phrases, speak their hatred in any other terms not explicitly listed.
They laugh at the pointlessness of your law, then someone - maybe you, maybe them - expands that law to cover more and more hateful words. Then one of you takes the next step, and allows the government to decide an unlisted word is hateful.
It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power,
No, it won't. All you are doing is granting them powers to use against you when they do come into power.
Do you even understand the concept of fascism? It is an authoritarian ideal. Fascists thrive on the exercise of political power over others. They need the power to oppress, to subjugate. They need you to become oppressive. They need you to exercise your power to suppress them, so that when they do manage to get elected, you have set that precedent for them to use against you.
The way you destroy the Nazis is by ensuring your society values liberal ideals, and summarily rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
