1797
Mandatory jail term for Nazi salute under new hate crime rules in Australia
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
1797 points (99.0% liked)
World News
40543 readers
1931 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:
(referencing your other comment for consolidation purposes)
So what we've established is that:
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?
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 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?
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.
You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist.
If you're going to do something like jail subversive elements, you best make sure you can't be considered a subversive element yourself.
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.