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.
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.
100% unregulated free speech would benefit the rich disproportionately. Is there no line for you? No nuance to how speech functions in our society?
Trump puts tariffs on Australia…
Fucking finally. Good shit Australia. Doing better than most. Watch Elmo throw a hissie fit. Pathetic
Sending people to jail is a great way to make sure they don’t spend time embroiled in Nazi ideology on every level. Probably the best way to make sure someone never comes in contact with a single particle of Nazism, is to send them to prison.
(Can you tell I’m american?)
Yeah, but most of the people I imagine pulling a Nazi salute “as a joke like Elon (were so hilarious haha look at those [insertracialslur])” might be deterred from pulling their shitty “joke” if it actually means prison time automatically. It doesn’t matter if it’s just like a week. Try explaining to an employer why you didn’t attend the important meeting you had because you sat in jail for a week for a fascist “joke”.
Honestly what else is there to do? These people aren’t exactly going to change their minds, and letting them display hate in the name of free speech is only going to help them mobilize and elect more trumps in the world.
Well I say it elsewhere, but we need to really start to rethink carcerial justice as a solution to social problems. It doesn’t help, it just compounds the contradictions that lead to problems like crime, fascism in the first place.
I understand we can’t just snap our fingers to make it go away. But The first step is discussion.
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.)
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 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.
To me, it feels like you are conflating some things here: I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo. Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors, and I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them; but I don’t believe that a government should take action unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.
I could be wrong in my interpretation, but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don’t believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion. The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is
Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal
but that would depend on how you are defining “support”.
deleted by creator
- Title: “Liberalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:47Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
