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
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 think it should be legal to do exactly one free punch on anyone who does a nazi salute.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. […]
I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech [1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association [1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship [2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech [3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).
All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.
References
- Title: “Liberalism”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:53Z. 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. […]
- Liberalism espouses freedom of speech.
- ¶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. […]
- Liberalism espouses freedom of association.
- ¶1.
- Title: “Freedom of speech”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-03T14:50. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:55Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. […]
- Word: “Censorship”. Publisher: Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:56Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship.
- §“noun”
- §“noun”
- Word: “Censor”. Publisher: Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:57Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring.
- §“verb”
- §“verb”
- Title: “Liberalism”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:53Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
[…] 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.
[…] 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”.
[…] 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?
Liberalism has proven ineffective at keeping fascists out of power I say we do something else.
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.
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.
Maybe Musk should take one of his Boeing Cyberplanes to Australia
Slippery slope
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.
I can’t see this actually happening since people who continue to commit crime, are re-released on bail.
Any good tech companies in Australia? How hard are the citizenship requirements if you avoid all the Mel Gibsons?
Kudos to Australia. Leon Hitler should travel there, have his arrested and deposited in the middle of the Great Australian Desert.
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.
If anyone with enough money and power does this they will likely not have it applied to them. It was just a weird awkward gesture right?
Yes that’s how corruption works
Send nazi pig Elon there on a one way flight.
Hey now! Australia is probably sick of everyone just sending criminals there!
Removed by mod
As an American, this feels wrong on the surface with our broad first amendment and all.
But when I think about it with my morality-enabled brain? Fuckin’ strewth mates! Get those cunts!
As an American, this feels wrong on the surface with our broad first amendment and all.
They do not give a rat’s fuck about YOUR freedom of speech and expression, and have been fighting in every single legal and illegal manner to suppress it. At this point in time it must be acknowledged that there needs to be that limit on them to force them back into being a small pathetic group that they were and to hopefully allow society to outgrow them in the future.
They will be ‘so much for the tolerant left’ so matter what you do, and they will actively censor anyone and anything they don’t like also no matter what. Liberals have been highly prone to hiring fascist and bigoted nutjobs in order to allow for a more ‘balanced’ perspective, but any attempt to make them hire more liberal minded people for their own platforms is brushed aside without a second thought. That shit doesn’t work on them. They want access to your stuff while also 100% forbidding you from even looking at their stuff.
