Summary
Australia has enacted strict anti-hate crime laws, mandating jail sentences for public Nazi salutes and other hate-related offenses.
Punishments range from 12 months for lesser crimes to six years for terrorism-related hate offenses.
The legislation follows a rise in antisemitic attacks, including synagogue vandalism and a foiled bombing plot targeting Jewish Australians.
The law builds on state-level bans, with prior convictions for individuals performing Nazi salutes in public spaces, including at sporting events and courthouses.
Because if you don’t see the nazis, then it’s OK that they’re nazis
I think it should be legal to do exactly one free punch on anyone who does a nazi salute.
I say two
Question for everyone supporting this: do you think saying women can’t think for themselves should be classified as hate speech?
Asking for a friend.
I used to be a person that believed very strongly in freedom of speech and that anything which was categorized as a philosophy or belief shouldn’t be censored.
However, after seeing how hard fascism has taken hold in America, I’m beginning to change my mind.
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.
It’s crazy watching the left throw freedom of speech under the bus as soon as people start saying things they don’t like.
Really makes me proud not to consider myself a liberal at this point. Ya’ll are nuts.
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.
American fascism is unique because it solely exists to distract the working class from their exploitation by the ruling class.
In other words, it’s cool to be a useful idiot because that’s what makes rich people richer the fastest.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 clarify 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.
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.
- Policing speech is incompatible with the freedom of speech.
- ¶1
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.
Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones. You say you don’t want to tolerate them socially, but when it comes to any actual legal intervention, suddenly, they should be tolerated. If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is.
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.
Then you should reconsider your ideology. If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views.
If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. If you don’t do that, then you inherently are tolerating them to an extent.
[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]
This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by “being Nazis”.
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.
[…] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]
Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:
Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.
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?
[…] 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.
[…] 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?
[…] If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]
I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.
Liberalism has proven ineffective at keeping fascists out of power I say we do something else.
deleted by creator
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you think the current government (USA) is fascist. If so, would you mind describing exactly why you think that? Do note that I’m not disputing your claim — I’m simply curious what your rationale is.
- Title: “Liberalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:47Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
[…] 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.
I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like “I wont allow you into my place of business”
Ah yes, not letting Nazis buy from a business, at the business’s will, dependent on every single individual place of employment all knowing they’re a Nazi and actively choosing to deny them business and employment, as opposed to… just locking them up so they don’t have a chance of their views being spread in the world. Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”
[…] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”
I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:
I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.
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.
[…] 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.
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. […]
- ¶1.
- “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. […]
- ¶1.
- “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-08T16:40Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:13Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism.
[…] 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).
well put. i still thoroughly disagree with you, mind, but this comment clicked my understanding of this argument.
[…] i still thoroughly disagree with you […]
Would you mind outlining why?
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.
How well did that work out for us this time? We have concrete evidence that this is not enough and that we need to try something else at this point.
There was a lot more going on in Germany leading up to WW2.
Neo-nazis don’t have to deal with the Treaty of Versailles in 2025, for example.
Maybe Musk should take one of his Boeing Cyberplanes to Australia
deleted by creator
Yes that’s how corruption works
Good. This needs to be worldwide. They need to reeducate the people as to
A: Why the Nazis were bad beyond ‘they wanna kill people!’ Their utter disgust of science and technology, and how their social policies were actively fucking over their own people in addition to others. B: Just how incompetent the Nazis were, and were far from a hyperefficient machine. C: Just how bad they were at science and despite their demonization, West Germany was never fully denazified and how many former Nazi officers returned to work as politicians and military officers.
There is a plethora of books written before and during WW2 that showcased just how evil the Nazis were and how fucked their society was. They also need a review of Mein Kampf and how Hitler dictated it. Exactly like how Trump dictated the Art of the Deal to a writer and did not write it himself.
My suggestion of one book written during the Nazi Era is Education for Death by Gregor Ziemer. The society it showed was really, REALLY fucked. How anyone could think this was a paradise is beyond me. Most modern fascists, with their donut bodies and chinless faces would be the types considered feeble and probably sterilized as a ‘charity’.
I don’t see how mandatory jail time helps with “They need to reeducate the people”
People tend to get further radicalized in prison, not less.
If you want to Re-educate people you need to invest in education in the first place.
Once someone buys into Nazi rhetoric it can take decades to deprogram them. How do you suggest this to be done when it takes far shorter amount of time to spread their rhetoric?
Their point is that not only does jailing them not deprogram them or prevent them from spreading their rhetoric, it is more likely to have the opposite effect.
That is a poor point and allowing it to spread is the reality we are actually facing.
Case in point. Germany has been tightly controlling this for several decades. Is their society now overran by Nazi rhetoric? The answer is no.
Being German, unfortunately the answer to that is yes, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum, it’s because the media and politicians have been courting right wing ideologies over the past 20 years to an extent that things have become normalized that should have never been normalized, e.g. framing asylum seekers as „migrants“ and adopting dehumanizing language against them, which has led to us having AFD polling at 20% and CDU at 30%.
CDU has recently collaborated with the right wing extremist AFD to push through a proposal for an anti-migration bill that violates our constitution. There has been an uproar but CDU and AFD actually polled higher after this. Our country is in deep trouble and we’re moving into a very scary direction.
Corps always swing right…darn.
Thank you for that perspective. It is sad to see all that diligence being chipped away.
That example proves the first users point. The answer to the German question is that they spend a great deal of money on having an excellent education system, and spend a lot of time educating their youth with an honest, unflinching look at the history of Nazism and fascism.
I’m not even saying don’t throw people in jail, I’m simply saying it is pure idiocy to believe that will do anything at all to help the underlying problem.
The answer to the German question is that they spend a great deal of money on having an excellent education system,
I think it was more that they had their country completely flattened due to them being fascists, and didn’t want it to happen again.
Some people need to be separated. This isn’t about censorship, it’s about group dynamics.
Let’s take it from both angles - just to avoid politics. A disruptive kid in a classroom affects every other kid. Get rid of that kid, and suddenly the whole classroom improves. Everyone can agree to that.
The other side - a company has a pro-union worker. Shitty company doesn’t like not controlling their workers, so they find a way to fire them.
Back to the Nazi, separate them from the rest of society. We don’t need them.
Back to the Nazi, separate them from the rest of society.
Permanently. Like how we permanently separated Nazis from the rest of the world in the 1940s.
I don’t see how mandatory jail time helps with “They need to reeducate the people”
Jail doesn’t work for Nazis. The world learned only one things solves the “fascism problem”.
It depends upon whether Australian prisons are focused on rehabilitation or punishment.
facists are deadend for humanity
Just how bad they were at science
Operation Paperclip.
Those were the exceptions. When it came to things like medical science with experiments on POWs and concentration camp prisoners they were so abysmal it wasn’t funny.
First, I despise the fucking Nazis and Communists. The disgusting human experiments that were conducted by the Germans and Japanese were gobbled up by the Allied medical professionals.
you can just call them fascists
Kudos to Australia. Leon Hitler should travel there, have his arrested and deposited in the middle of the Great Australian Desert.
Send nazi pig Elon there on a one way flight.
Hey now! Australia is probably sick of everyone just sending criminals there!
I feel like this copypasta is mandatory here:
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”
And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
I first saw this on reddit
Also this idiot performing a nazi salute outside court after just being sentenced, got busted. What a nimrod.
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.
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.
[…] 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.
[…] 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.
[…] [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.
“No charges to be laid over alleged Nazi salute made by officer at Victoria Police academy”
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/104796744
Cops get to be a little Nazi as a treat.
Yeah. There’s not a lot of information there though. Who really knows what happened.
Maybe the police covered it up. Maybe it wasn’t a Nazi salute.
This guy was pretty emphatic. I mean there was nothing about how she’s a good officer or maybe a misunderstanding or whatever. That was a sincere and direct statement of position and intent to prosecute any offenders.
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.
Any good tech companies in Australia? How hard are the citizenship requirements if you avoid all the Mel Gibsons?
Fucking finally. Good shit Australia. Doing better than most. Watch Elmo throw a hissie fit. Pathetic
I hope he tests the waters there and Australia follows through.
Don’t kid yourself. Australia is also an oligarchy where corporations get most of what they want passed within days/weeks, with little to no debate, while popular or inconsequential policies are given months or years of debate (so the murdoch/oligarch propaganda machine can distract the public and tell them how to think).
There is no chance in hell either major party would imprison an American dictators right hand man. They’re both corporate whores at heart, with little/no virtue.
Don’t import this “both sides” bullshit just because you see everyone saying that about the US.
Criticising governments is fine, but Albo’s government is a polar opposite to LNP.
Any politician needs to function within our capitalist society. If you don’t like that, have a revolution and return us all to agrarian communism. In the mean time the PM needs to keep corporate Australia ticking over. That said, there’s a reason Labor has such deep ties to Australia’s unions. Labor has very consistently improved wages and terms for employees, while LNP wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
Labor got me two pay rises, basically pays for my daily coffee.
That’s just in this term though.
There’s a ratchet effect over many decades.
Agreed.
I’m so sick of this absolutist free speech bullshit that wants to make room for terrorist ideologies to hide.
There is no free speech absolutism. Dare to criticize him or make fun of him and you are banned and ostracized. It’s a Nazi enablement pure and simple.
He’s a free speech absolutist- when it comes to his own speech.
It’s kinda weird to sort of start rolling back to where some type of conservatism is actually a good thing. I don’t want to identify as a conservative, but I definitely want to conserve institutions of justice and whatnot and not have them corrupted by right-wing crypto cucks.
It’s kinda weird to sort of start rolling back to where some type of conservatism is actually a good thing.
For what it’s worth, politics is more complex than conservation and change. The status quo is what got us here, so we must to better than merely conserve.
See, I am overall against any and all limits of free speech but…
Yeah. Context matters. And in current world context, good job Australia, hope outher countries take notes.
I don’t really understand this whole “free speech” thing. If it were ww2 would you be worried about nazis having free speech or would you do what needed to be done?
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.
Oh boy do I have news for you about what the US did without laws to anyone considered communist. Free speech has and will never be absolute, so it is up to us to determine what is allowed and what is not.
but…
That’s where you lost me.
Knowing my luck, I’d get 12 months for having my arm at an unfavourable angle while giving directions.
Literal hate crimes, I’m all for. A gesture with your arm gets you 12 months? That’s too much, regardless of its origin or meaning.
I’ll say, likely wasting my digital breath, I do not support any sort of Nazi bullshit or affiliates. But truly, outlawing gestures is a next level, knee jerk reaction to a problem they don’t know what else to do to solve.
If you read the article, just a gesture with your arm does not land a person a 12-month prison sentence. It needs to be in public and in combination with: hateful speech, or a hateful act. It seems to be an add-on for specific types of hate crimes.
Excellent, then I’m all for it.
So Elon Musk would’ve been in the clear.
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.
he alludes to the fourteen words right after the salute so you could make a case
It’s a nazi fucken salute mate. What part of it isn’t a hate crime?
The part where it’s raising your arm at an angle. You dislike it because of what it means and signifies, but imagine some group took ‘flipping the bird’ to align with their ideology and in 20 years your kid gets arrested for flipping someone off.
Obviously a silly example but you have to look past the context and think about what are we really doing here? Jailing people for a gesture?
That’s fucking wild.
I generally don’t do “slippery slope” arguments, and I also dislike invoking the “paradox of tolerance”, but I will say that I think the messaging here is important.
To me, it’s not “just a gesture”. It’s a very clear and intentional demonstration of ideological alignment, and it’s an ideology of hate and intolerance.
I’m absolutely ok with expressing, as a society, that we will not accept this ideology amongst us. If they want to scuttle around through the cracks like cockroaches then so be it.
Fair point, best explained response yet.
The problem is application of this kind of law tends to be highly subjective depending on who is in power. This law is ironically ripe for abuse by fascists. This type of free speech should be met with universal scorn, shaming, and ostracism, not jail.
Yeah nah. Any law is ripe for abuse by fascists.
To me the law is less about punishing Nazis and more of a clear statement that as a society we find this ideology unacceptable.
You sound like those cops who tell victims of domestic violence that there’s nothing they can do until lives are being threatened.
Cool dude. You sound like a battered house wife that sticks up for her abusive husband.
While without context I’d agree that banning a gesture is a bit much, especially with such steep measures, I think that in a world when one of the de facto co-leaders of major if not the main world superpowers openly does nazi salute twice, we need to up the guard and cut this shit in the bud.
And as you said - we don’t know how to solve USA becoming a nazi state rapidly. Nobody does. And third reich ain’t gonna hold a candle to USA if they decide it’s time for blitzkrieg. So doingall we can to damage and reduce nazizm where we still can is admirable.
