Australian lawmakers have banned the performance of the Nazi salute in public and outlawed the display or sale of Nazi hate symbols such as the swastika in landmark legislation that went into effect in the country Monday. The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.
The crime of publicly performing the Nazi salute or displaying the Nazi swastika is punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the Reuters news agency.
Mark Dreyfus, Australia’s Attorney-General, said in a press release Monday that the laws — the first of their kind in the country — sent “a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts.”
It very literally is not. If you’re referring to “free speech”, that’s a whole other thing.
Still, it is pretty patchwork and ambiguous. Almost got that flag-burning amendment though! Member that one? Before ‘gay marriage’ and ‘the war on Christmas’ we had ‘flag-burning’ as a very srs point of intellectual ‘discussion’.
Incorrect, the supreme court has many times over ruled “hate speech”, which doesn’t have a legal definition in the US, is protected under 1st amendment. Calling for violence is not.
I am free to say “I hate [insert protected class/person/group/etc]” without legal consequences.
Although I am technically free to say “Let’s cause harm to/attack [insert protected class/person/group/etc]”, legal consequences could follow since call to violence.
Agreed. Hence the issue with “hate speech” in quotes.
(Tl;dr: incitement to violence and harassment are not protected speech)
I seem to recall that when southern states wanted to prosecute Martin Luther King, Jr for “hate speech” on the theory that his calls for equality amounted to anti-white racism, the way SCOTUS dealt with that was by punting on the question of what hate speech is or isn’t.
By taking the ‘hate speech’ stick away from states, the high court effectively ruled that Nazis had the right to rallies under the rubric of free speech. It was this optimistic dithering on the court’s part (surely, the way forward is free speech and everybody will use that in good faith right?) that is part of why the US’s stance on hate speech diverged from that of Europe and the commonwealth
Let’s change that then.
Where the first speech absolutists at?
No seriously, there are persuasive arguments for protecting speech that is utterly abhorrent… who remembers their John Stuart Mill well enough to chime in?
They’re buying social media platforms and censoring speech they don’t like
They said free speech absolutists not posers
Now imagine Trump or someone like him is deciding what’s hate speech.
No. Fuck that.
The scary thing is, once we ban hate speech, who gets to decide what is hate speech? If it’s the current Supreme Court then hate speech will be discussing medical procedures with your doctor. So…
In Canada restricted hate speech works like this :
It requires three parts.
It is publicly expressed (if it’s done in a private setting it isn’t chargeable)
It targets a person or group of people with a protected characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation (the protected grounds for discrimination are outlined in section 3 of the Human Rights Act)
It uses extreme language to express hatred towards that person or group of people because of their protected characteristic which means it counts when
Describing group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
Suggesting group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization
Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children
Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction
Punishment wise it’s about on par with a disorderly conduct charge… So about the same as being drunk and yelling your head off in a public place or running nude through the streets. Police aren’t likely to arrest someone for it unless the hate speech is obvious or well documented it and someone actively complains.
Idk, hate speech has been illegal in the UK for a long time. Race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation and religion are all protected under hate speech laws. The statues have been continuously updated since 1986 and we’ve still managed to not criminalise asking your doctor for an abortion.
I think I’d rather live with hate speech laws than without them, but if I lived in a country that couldn’t separate church from state, or in a dictatorship, I suspect my opinion would change.
Whilst I agree with the rest, I was under the impression that the Church Of England is deeply interwined with the state in the UK, down to there being bishops of it in the House Of Lords (not sure if they or not ended that last part some years ago).
Absolutelly, it’s not the Church telling the State what laws to do as in other countries, but it’s hardly separate from the state.
My understanding is the USA officially has separated church and state (as it’s written in the constitution) but in practice, the US is a fairly religious country. Politicians regularly talk about their religious beliefs, religious agendas affect state schools, and a large amount of population believe “pastors” over teachers.
The UK on the other hand is offically a Christian country but in reality it’s secular, or “multifath”. Politicians tend not to talk about their religious beliefs at all. Religious state schools are common and yet they tend to be more secular than American schools, and with the exception of a very few, schools here don’t deny science. People that do identify as Christian in the UK tend to be more progressive and tolerant than American fundamentalists/evangelicals/baptists.
As for there being COE bishops in the House of Lords, that’s correct. There’s 26 of them in fact. It’s an archaic, undemocratic hangover that really needs to be reformed. But despite their potential interference/sway, analysis of the way they vote on bills shows they tend not to rock the boat, voting in line with whatever political party is currently in power.
So despite America supposedly having separation of church and state and the UK not, it’s kinda the other way around in practice. Theres no excuse for bishops in the House of Lords though. I’m not convinced there should be a House of Lords at all.
Yeah, I’ve lived in the UK and although officially the Church Of England is a state religion, I didn’t saw any actual grand displays of faith or religion-inspired lawmaking.
I just found it interestingly somebody saying the UK has separation of Church and State when strictly speaking it’s almost the opposite, though de facto things are way closer to that than, say, in the US, much less countries which are openly all about one Religion such as Iran and Israel.
It’s a funny World.
Have you lived in the US since 2016? Sure as fuck feels pretty free.
What?
Nope. It is. Using racial slurs and displaying a swastika and sieg heiling is very much protected by the 1st Amendment.
Yes it is. Hate speech is often used as the quintessential example of speech that is objectionable but still protected under the First Amendment.
About the only exception is incitement to an imminent lawless act. And the bar for that is very high. Like “Someone should round up all the $SLURs and string them up!” is probably not incitement in the US. Pretty much anything shy of “You guys, go string up that $SLUR over there, before he gets away!” is going to come short of incitement. You basically have to be directing people to do something illegal in short order.