Mandatory jail for Nazi salutes under new Australia laws
Mandatory jail for Nazi salutes under new Australia laws
The new laws come amid a wave of high profile antisemitic attacks which have become a heated topic of debate.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm sorry but why is this so heavily upvoted?
Anit-semitism and any other form of hate speech is abhorrent, but imprisonment for a gesture is absolutely dystopian.
Paradox of tolerance. At this point in history it's important to draw hard lines. It will be up to police enforcement and since generally police are sympathetic to white nationalism, i don't think it will be used outside of public displays of clear intention.
Have hard lines like this ever worked throughout history, though? It's not like the people who originally came up with the concept of free speech didn't think of this exact case. But they believed it was more important for the people to deal with speech they don't like themselves (within the bounds of the law, of course) than for a government to silence speech.
I see a problem with inauthentic behaviour online, using bots to artificially amplify hate speech to make it seem more prominent than it actually is. But I think having 100 people tolerate 1 hateful asshat's speech is the definition of democracy. That doesn't mean harassment is legal. That doesn't mean assault or murder or jim crow laws should be tolerated. The worst case is the hate catches on and spreads democratically, and that sucks, but if it happens I guess that's the society we live in for now, and hopefully it's just a phase. But if a government artificially silences hate speech, you're just asking for that to come back and bite you later. Now all those people who would have simply been hateful now also distrust the system they live in, and will seek to dismantle it and replace it with a hateful one.
IMO this is exactly why Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Thinking that we can live in a society that is systematically devoid of hate is attractive, but it's a Nirvana Fallacy and is destined to fail. This isn't new ground we're treading.
We have different values, I guess. I don't think tolerating intolerance is acceptable. I think tolerance of intolerance is essentially condoning it. I don't see how silencing hate speech will "come back to bite me" any worse than the environment it creates. Allowing violence in language encourages violence of other forms, slippery slopes and all that.
You can point the finger in the other direction, saying silencing speech is a slippery slope to limiting all speech, but I'm still confident in my beliefs that tolerating intolerance is the greater of the evils to me.
To be clear, I'm talking about people saying things like "those people are lesser than me", not things like "those people should be eradicated". Inciting violence, or any crime, is not an exercise of free speech, that's a crime.
I guess I just don't see any ethical difference between wielding the power of legislation to silence speech, and an angry mob of vigilantes gathering and silencing them in person. Either way, it's the society saying "we don't like your words, and we're gonna punish you for that."
I just know that throughout history, people have used "I'm confident in my beliefs" to justify limiting speech they thought would be harmful to their society, only for us to look back in shame at their intolerance.
I can say I'm confident that intolerance harms our society, I just don't think it's possible to legislate away hate. We can physically intimidate people into hiding their hate, but making hate illegal will never get rid of it. But maybe that's the best we can ever do, I don't know.
Looking at history, i just don't have any reason to believe that any sociological hurdle can be solved by moving strictly in a "positive" direction. I understand local maxima, and understand that society always has to regress before it can progress. For the same reason we can't legislate away hate, we can't legislate in "progress". We might try, and it might seem like it's working for a little while, until it doesn't. And that's when humanity learns a new lesson.
It is a form of hatespeech and Americans just watched a political figure do it twice on live tv so we are sensitive to it rn. We cannot tolerate intolerance in a tolerant society.
Personally I would prefer if we just hit these people
bring back the public humiliation, instead of putting nazis in jail put them on the largest square in the capital and let people spit on them for a week.
Punishing Nazis for attempting to rally support from the wider public is dystopian? I definitely don't want to live in your perfect society.
Yes, stripping somebody of their freedom for using a hand gesture is dystopian. Maybe consider that you thinking otherwise makes you a radical on the other side of the spectrum.
There's a reason fascism is becoming more popular across the globe and it's accelerated by these overreactions. It feeds into right wing narratives and pushes people on the fence into becoming radical right more than just letting these idiots babble their bullshit and be seen for the fools they are.
Sorry, are you really saying that a Nazi salute is a simple gesture and not overt hate speech against racialized groups? That a Nazi rally in a public place is totally cool and a reasonable expression of political ideology in a democratic society?
That is not a centrist position, it's a pro-Nazi position. Nazis are not acceptable in public. If a Nazi wants to salute up and down the street, they should be prepared for people to take it as it is (an act of hate speech). In some countries that's not a crime, but it sure is in my country and, soon, Australia too.
I'm not disagreeing that a Nazi salute is hate speech. Im disagreeing that it's a sensible course of action to give the government the power to put a human being in a cage for doing it.
Using racial slurs is also hate speech, should a person be imprisoned for using the n-word?
Where it becomes punishable via government intervention to me should be a direct threat of violence on a group of people or call to action to do so.
I'm trying to comprehend what the intended outcome of this type of punishment is anyway. Out of sight, out of mind I guess?
I think that this is shortsighted. Imagine a scenario in which a person might use a Nazi salute in public: it is unlikely that it would be used by a single person just out doing their normal routine. Consider the recent context of Elon Musk, who was at a very large political gathering and was expecting people to respond in kind with their own salutes.
Do you want more visible Nazis? They show up when you summon them. They don't go away when you outlaw their symbols, but they do find it less appealing to promote themselves online or have rallies to recruit more would-be Nazis. I understand your hesitance to let the state do these things, it's a large part of the reason why I don't believe in capital punishment. But if the state doesn't have the power to stop this peacefully, the next step (no matter what "side" is doing it) is violence.
The comparison to saying slurs is just not equivalent whatsoever.
The appropriate comparison is to hate speech -- speech which is never tolerable. The kinds of things I wouldn't say in this comment. Some racial slurs might qualify, in my opinion, but it would be particular phrases using them and not necessarily the slur itself. The N word is obviously not hate speech when certain people say it, otherwise lots of rap music would be illegal. But there are certainly hate speech phrases that use it that are just as bad as a Nazi salute.
Freedom of speech, like any tolerance, needs to have limits and this is a very reasonable one.
American standards of freedom of speech are not universal.
This instance doesn't have downvotes, and a lot of people upvote the article to boost visibility, not necessarily because they agree with whatever or whoever the article is about.
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
Upvoting a news article does not remotely imply celebration of the news