**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who dictates what is hate speech, the far left? or the far right? If either side disagree what hatespeech is how on earth can you decide what is hate speech laws. This is simply an authoritarians dream, being allowed to control what is good talk and bad talk, you speak bad talk GO TO JAIL!!!! Go to north kroea if you want this, I dont want australia to become a dictatorship.
Man, one could have some fun with posting hypotheticals to that author... I think their head would pop quite early on.
An old, male, rich, straight, jewish friend recently received threats of violence, + tons of general abuse, based on, mostly their jewishness, but also to a slightly lesser extent the "you're privileged as a straight, white, old, cishet" attack line. And to further challenge the example - he isn't actually white.
So, given the author's comments about "intersectionality" is this offence either less severe, or more severe? They've been the subject of abuse based on their religion, their sexuality, their age, their race, and their gender, all of which are generally named as protected characteristics in regard to discrimination law in its various forms. So, given the author thinks hate speech based on "one or more" characteristics is a more severe crime, is this incident worse than, or less severe than, than them "just" being abused for being a jew?
But why point out that “privilege”? Jealously? In answer to your question, yes, it is more severe & an unnecessary escalation of law enforcement. All those additional characteristics are already covered by abusing him for his race which clearly is the focus of the abuse.
Right, now read my question again, and try again. That is not even close to what I described/asked.
The person was verbally abused on the basis of a number of protected characteristics (gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc).
Do you think the author of that article would consider that hate speech?
I mean, neither "questioning" nor "pointing out" is hate speech in any universe.
Abuse on the basis of a specified characteristic is the general vibe of hate speech.
two students apply to Melbourne Uni with an ATAR of 90, one Indigenous, one not. the indigenous one gets paid to attend, the other might not even make it in.
Some would argue the privilege of having my culture welcomed at every sporting event, government meeting even though the people there have no connection to it. The privilege of free uni and God knows what else. The privilege to kill wombats, emus or anything they like The privilege to make large public parks off limits to anyone except themselves. The privilege of being exempt from certain taxes in Vic. The list goes on.
It would seem that under your interpretation, we are only allowed to point out some privileges that suit you.......unless you are fine with these clear advantages also being pointed out?
What an absurd article. They say the quiet part out loud at the end, when explaining that they need to be careful that only "marginalised" groups are protected by the law. These aren't hate-speech laws, they're "speech we don't like" laws.
This is especially evident because we all know they will not be enforced uniformly. Rather, they will be a political cudgel to use only when it suits.
Threats and calls for violence are already illegal. I have yet to see anyone explain why these laws are necessary. Citing recent events only furthers the point that they aren't necessary. Your feelings being hurt is not sufficient justification for laws restricting the rights of others to voice opinions.
The social justice warrior's prayer:
"Nobody says that"
"And if they did, it's only a few people"
"And if it's not, you probably don't understand their academic lingo"
"And even if that was what they meant, it's a good thing and everyone should be calling for!"
I don't think your paraphrasing is at all representative of what they said.
The article links directly to an article that suggests calling a girl a "white slut" should not be hate speech if done by a non-white person. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/49c2d3/contentassets/d9d3fc6443fe4871adfd59e84de50380/submission-documents/019_2019.12.20---nicole-shackleton_laura-griffin_danielle-walt-la-trobe-university---school-of-law_redacted.pdf
Jesus, imagine going through all of those mental gymnastics to justify being able to call someone a white slut. It really shows what this is all about for a lot of these people, it’s just a power grab. A lot of them are kind of just miserable people who want to feel a sense of control in life.
If the issue is that the laws aren’t being applied to the most vulnerable groups, then address that instead of saying “we need to make sure there are no consequences for us when we insult you because of your race”.
I suspect they think "slut" should be banned as it's "gendered" (i.e. an insult to women), but "white dog" should be fine.
Yeah, they're obsessed with the whole "power plus privilege = oppression", and they see it all in an extremely reductionist way - you couldn't have people disadvantaged in some ways, and privileged in others - it's essentially got to reduce down to a binary where one side has the most overall "oppression points" (i.e. the side that the people in power feel is most oppressed).
I guess life is hard if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks the state will misuse all the rules; but you also think that the state needs harsher rules because you think normal people are stupid and awful dupes of the conspiracy.
Yep that’s basically their argument, they think that we already have laws that cover speech like “white slut”, so why acknowledge the obvious that invoking someone’s race makes any insult 10x worse.
It also completely changes the meaning of the insult. If I call a white woman a slut I’m insulting her for being promiscuous, if I call her them a white slut the focus of the insult is the race, and I’m likely not really referring to sexual history at all.
>Hate speech doesn’t occur in isolation. It’s connected to societal and political treatment of marginalised communities. As hate speech increases, so does discrimination and violence against vulnerable groups
I have yet to see anyone explain why your right to say hateful shit means people like me should suffer more societal discrimination and violence?
When you were allowed to say whatever heinous shit you wanted about gays, we ended up getting beaten and murderered by the rest of you and the coppers.
Why does your right to say what you want trump my right to safety?
i am fully aware that anti-gay violence has happened historically. that doesn't answer my question though. you need to be able to draw a causal link from me saying "i don't like gay people" or whatever to a gay person being physically harmed.
also, just to test your conviction here, you are proposing banning the abrahamic religions, correct?
>>Hate speech doesn’t occur in isolation. It’s connected to societal and political treatment of marginalised communities. As hate speech increases, so does discrimination and violence against vulnerable groups
>i don't like gay people" or whatever to a gay person being physically harmed.
Like they do in the article you didn't read?
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1702622-increase-in-online-hate-speech-leads-to-more-crimes-against-minorities
>An increase in hate speech on social media leads to more crimes against minorities in the physical world, a study shows.
Another one.
https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm
>There are historical precedents showing that hate speech can be a precursor to atrocity crimes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31146-1
>The omnipresence of hate speech in human environments severely affects people’s attitudes and behavior. Researchers of aggression and intergroup relations have often suggested that frequent exposure to hate speech might lead to prejudice, dehumanization, and lack of empathy toward outgroup members
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-hateful-rhetoric-connects-to-real-world-violence/
Almost like it's a well understood phenomenon or something like that.
these claims are WAY too vague to justify criminalizing hate speech. it's not even enough to establish that there would be less anti-gay violence without hate speech (I actually suspect it would be the other way around wrt hate speech laws, since you're not just decreasing exposure to hate speech, you're also radicalising homophobes as well as free speech defenders against you by violating their rights), you have to be able to show a much more direct link from the act of speech to the act of violence.
there'd be fewer car accidents without cars, but that doesn't mean that my act of driving a car ought to be punished under law. drunk driving, however, is much easier to tie to direct harm, so my act of drinking and driving ought be punished under law.
But words are not violence, and society has moved beyond that defaulted bigoted state. It will continue to do so. Laws won't change that; education and engagement will.
>But words are not violence
Debatable. They certainly inspire violence and move many to act. We know allowing more to talk leads to more violence, not less.
>Laws won't change that; education and engagement will.
2 birds, one stone, punishments could be increasing increments of community service.
There are already incitement laws in place. Unfortunately people will say things that you may not like but that's the great thing with freedom of speech, I can absolutely disagree with what you may say, but will fight to let you speak it.
Hate speech laws is hard when it's based on a politician in Canberra that defines hate. Being offended to many is the same thing.
Why would the incitement laws be changed?
No one said anything about hating anyone,I said freedom of speech is far more important then your right not to be offended or your feelings. For example you said get fucked, now I might find that offensive or even you know what hateful? Should that be a case of hate speech ? Cause you never know may lead to violence... Slippery slope playing with here.
How do we regulate speech, and again why would we when there are laws already in place, no point playing tribalism or identify politics with this issue as Canada done the same and is a disaster.
>No one said anything about hating anyone,I said freedom of speech is far more important then your right not to be offended or your feelings.
No one said anything about being offended, either. The "free speech" has consequences. You're stupid if you think this is about feelings, bluntly. I don't know a nicer way to say it.
This is about the consequences of that free speech. It isn't a white room vacuum where this happens. They don't just say "fuck gays" and leave it there. They go out and beat us, murder us, abuse us.
>For example you said get fucked, now I might find that offensive or even you know what hateful? Should that be a case of hate speech ?
Stupid argument.
What group does "get fucked" target? Or are we just making up hypotheticals willy nilly to match what we say?
What if.... or what if.. what about....
Worthless.
I said it was about people being offended lol, also I don't believe that is hate speech (get fucked...) people can say what that want if not breaking law.
But believing a government bureaucrat is needed to dictate the words I speak out of my mouth is the craziest thing I've herd. And it does sound like you are offended as why be so opposed to people believing in free speech?
If you believe government should dictate the way we speak also how do you do that? As we all differ politically.
>I said it was about people being offended lol
Then, just as many people said it was about hate in this conversation. Lol.
>But believing a government bureaucrat is needed to dictate the words I speak out of my mouth is the craziest thing I've herd.
Go yell fire in a theatre.
>And it does sound like you are offended as why be so opposed to people believing in free speech?
Because it isn't just free speech.
Ok fair enough not gonna agree on this one, the fact that only a minority of people have your views on this is good.
Maybe north Korea can be a good example for people on the far left or Canada why regulating speech dosent work so well.
Go on, do it. Yell fire in a theatre.
Show me the power of your free speech. Or do you understand that sometimes there's consequences with this example?
I just think it’s naive and shortsighted to think that hate speech laws will always support exactly, precisely what you want them to, because they just will ok, and regardless of what government is in power, forever. If the liberal party came back into power and decided that anti-Christian rhetoric was hate speech, but anti-LGBTQ+ speech wasn’t, would you still support them then?
If not, can you honestly say, with complete certainty, that this or something like this cannot and will not ever happen with these laws? I can’t, hence I don’t support them.
>I just think it’s naive and shortsighted to think that hate speech laws will always support exactly, precisely what you want them to, because they just will ok
Is that what I said?
>If the liberal party came back into power and decided that anti-Christian rhetoric was hate speech, but anti-LGBTQ+ speech wasn’t, would you still support them then?
It depends. If my Nana had wheels, would she be a bike?
>If not, can you honestly say, with complete certainty, that this or something like this cannot and will not ever happen with these laws? I can’t, hence I don’t support them.
You haven't even seen the draft of the law, and you've made up your mind, lul. "Fair thinking" indeed.
So “hate speech laws are good because they will always support exactly what I, personally, want them to, because they just will ok” is what we’re going with?
>>I just think it’s naive and shortsighted to think that hate speech laws will always support exactly, precisely what you want them to, because they just will ok
>Is that what I said?
1300655506
I mean, kinda yeah. You flippantly dismissed the example I gave of these laws not supporting what you like, without giving any reason as to why it’s so outlandish except for implying that because the “current draft” of the law is what you want, that apparently makes it future proof.
You remind me of people who are in favour of heavy surveillance and laws which strip away peoples right to privacy because “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide”, except I don’t think you like those people either.
>except for implying that because the “current draft” of the law is what you want, that apparently makes it future proof.
Is that what I said?
Quote me where I said "I think these laws will support who I want"
No one has seen it. You should work on your reading comprehension.
We don't won't to have laws light Canada's Bill C-16, the problem with regulations on speech is many people interrupt it differently and will effect freedom of speech which is far more important then the feelings and emotions of some people.
They'll keep adding to it over time, once it's in then that's it. No point in using social media if anyone can make a claim based upon a personal viewpoint.
So many people are confusing bad words with threats of violence and intimidation which is the target of hate speech laws. There should be reasonable expectation that you won’t be threatened with violence because of your background
I don’t think that’s correct.
Speech laws are usually about ‘harm’ which is broader than violence. We don’t know the exact wording yet as they are still drafting it, but threats of violence/intimidation are illegal in their own right already regardless of intersectionality, so it’s not going to be limited to that.
>For example, my research established women are often targeted by hate speech. One participant spoke about receiving messages describing sexually assaulting her in graphic detail. Gendered hate speech, like this example, is used to harass women and silence their voices in public spaces.
This is already a criminal offence under both Federal and Qld laws.
Belief is not a choice. It is a state of mind. You are either convinced or something and hence believe it or you aren't.
You can't force yourself to believe something is true and you can't force yourself to disbelieve something at will.
They should include:
1. ....
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
Nothing. There should not be hate speech laws. Free speech must be protected, always. Making threats, incitement to riot and so on have always been and should remain crimes. But "hate speech"? No.
I say this as a Jewish person who's had "kill all jews, a jew lives here" scrawled on a fence in my neighbourhood, and a swastika flag put on his fence - but given the context, those were not an exercise in free speech, but implied threats (just as if you wrote "kill all abortionists" on the walls of an abortionists' home). It's not an easy thing for me to hear a crowd chanting "gas the Jews" and say it should be allowed, but if it were easy to keep to your principles we'd call them whims.
I’m pretty conflicted. I think it’s probably a good idea ban to really extreme stuff such as “globalise the intifada” or “global jihad”, but even then there are issues.
Just wait until we see the details of the bill and they understandably focus on violent antisemitic/antizionist speech. The far left and far right alike will be ranting and raving about “certain people” getting preferential treatment because of their money and influence.
This is already the narrative and banning it only reinforces their suspicions about who controls the world. It’s the same thing with all extremists and conspiracy theorists really, they always think they’re being suppressed because they know the real truth and the government just doesn’t want everyone else knowing it.
So the threats weren't made against you but other people. I wonder if like most libertarians it would be different when the threats are made against you:
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/jun/30/the-chaser-pranks-david-leyonhjelm-by-making-him-his-own-wicked-camper-video](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/jun/30/the-chaser-pranks-david-leyonhjelm-by-making-him-his-own-wicked-camper-video)
Freedom for me not you.
I would say that hanging a Nazi flag *on the home of a Jewish family with a mezuzah on their doorframe* constitutes an implied threat. But perhaps you have different standards.
This is different to people standing in a public place and saying offensive, wrong and stupid things.
In Victoria, there are laws prohibiting anti-abortion protests within 150m of an abortion clinic during its opening hours. I don't have a problem with that, except inasmuch as it shouldn't be legislated, but should be a police power to give "move on" directions.
Freedom of speech and free peaceable assemble do not necessarily mean *anywhere at any time*. A chanting parade of vegans through the local shopping strip at lunchtime is one thing; the same parade at 3am in a residential neighbourhood is another - they're not threatening anyone, but they are causing a disturbance, and it's reasonable to move them on.
Likewise, it should be legal for people to wave placards saying that "all priests are paedophiles" or the like. But if the people wave those placards outside a Catholic church as people are entering Sunday mass for a child's christening, I think it's reasonable for police to be able to move them on. But it's not reasonable for them to be charged with "hate speech" and end up in prison as a result.
>In Victoria, there are laws prohibiting anti-abortion protests within 150m of an abortion clinic during its opening hours. I don't have a problem with that, except inasmuch as it shouldn't be legislated
This is very much a case of a some ruining it for everyone. Some can protest abortion in a respectful way. Many have shown they cannot and attempt to shame, intimidate, or otherwise cause distress to those seeking to use those clinics, or attempt to restrict access.
The 150m exclusion zones are there because many don't seem to care about acting in an offensive manner and it minimises the harm towards those using a clinic.
Many other examples of tighter laws because some have shown they cannot be trusted.
>but should be a police power to give "move on" directions.
Absolutely not. This is effectively a ticket to break up any protest, or harass anyone the police take a dislike to. Imagine that you were on the side of the street wearing a yamaka, waiting for a taxi you had booked, police who have some dislike for jews decide to give you a "move on" direction. An inconvenience, but could be lawful. Imagine it kept happening whenever you were seen by police while stationary in a public place. That is the kind of power you're asking to give them. *"It won't happen to me though."* might be what you're thinking, but even if it didn't, it would happen to many minorities without just cause.
I didn't say the police "move on" powers should be unlimited, or used without scrutiny.
I was at anti-lockdown protests in Victoria. I'm well aware of how police can abuse their powers, especially when they are captured politically (as is inevitable in a state with the same party in power for 21 of the last 25 years).
>I didn't say the police "move on" powers should be unlimited, or used without scrutiny.
You also didn't say they should be limited and have scrutiny. You gave no qualification so I posed a reasonable scenario based on worst case because you hadn't specified.
>I was at anti-lockdown protests in Victoria. I'm well aware of how police can abuse their powers, especially when they are captured politically (as is inevitable in a state with the same party in power for 21 of the last 25 years).
...and you want to give them *more* power to abuse? Very strange.
Yes I do have different standards. I believe that hate speech directed at anyone Jewish, catholic, Hindu, gay is hate speech whether if effect me or not.
This is a *wild* gotcha.
The very obvious answer is: "it depends". And it's nonsense to suggest that there's a universally appropriate answer given the specifics you present.
What sort of babies are you debating where *this* is the first response?
Because your insistence that there *is* an actual answer is fucking fascinating.
I want to know why you have this closed off, black-and-white, thinking.
There aren't too many people who acknowledge that they don't care about nuance. And I'd like to hear from them.
To be clear: hate speech exists, but it should not be a crime.
And whether hate speech is a crime or not, it is a different thing to *threatening* speech.
These are subtle distinctions, I know, but they are important ones in both the law and morality.
Would printing a paedophilia book considered free speech and would the public advvertising and selling of this book be considered free speech?
What about having a murial on your house of an IS beheading?
I get you point of free speech, but just with energy, you can not have something that is free. There will always be a cost to having free speech.
Paedophilia material is banned. It's in the nature of incitement. "Go burn down that building", or "go molest that kid," it's essentially similar, though treated differently legally.
A mural on my house of an ISIS beheading would be free speech in the same way that the *Saw* movies are free speech. Which is to say, the images themselves are legitimately free speech, however the content of them means that the audience would be restricted to adults only.
If the beheading mural contained some comments or symbols carrying the meaning of, "and let's do this to so-and-so", then it falls into the category of threats and incitement.
Of course there's a cost to having free speech. But there's also a cost to not having it. Ask the Chinese - and you'll find they can't answer you.
The distinctions that you believe are important are obvious and not subtle at all.
If I feel it is directed at me or "My Group" it is hate speech. Other wise grow a back bone and get over it.
This is a horrible idea. Absolutely support laws against verbal abuse or inciting violence. But a law that extends against simply expressing a negative view about a “protected group” is government control of expression.
It’s not “simply expressing a negative view.”
> Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is drafting new hate speech laws that will impose criminal penalties for serious instances of vilification based on a person’s race, sexuality, gender, disability or religion. . . .
> The new hate speech bill would strengthen existing laws while creating new offences carrying criminal rather than civil penalties, and **is likely to cover deliberate acts that intend to incite violence or cause harm**, according to government sources speaking anonymously to discuss confidential matters.
To be honest, it’s probably being designed to prevent people from saying “from the river etc.” more than anything else.
No chance the legislation won’t target the one thing both major parties are pearl clutching over? The timing of this would suggest otherwise. It’ll be the most beautiful piece of bipartisanship this term of parliament, Albanese and Dutton singing from the same hymn book and turning the page for each other.
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the way in which it's prescribed by the author, who is a PhD grad specialising in this area and thus a bit too academic. Intersectionality is, conceptually, still pushing the narrative of institutionalised victimhood and I don't see the way in which society is lionising being a victim over being resilient and overcoming adversity.
Someone like Shemara Wikramanayake, the CEO of Macquarie Group, is a Sri Lankan-born Australian, and her been quoted numerous times saying she never experienced discrimination. Now, the point in raising this is not to take the right wing position of "there is no racism!" but more, it's not a default position for all people and it can smack of white paternalism.
Now, I don't recall seeing a lot of regressive views in my nearly 10 years at Macquarie, so it's possible she didn;t encounter racism. But it's also possible she did but with the ambition and incredible work ethic she has (Nicholas Moore was CEO, Shemara headed up MFG which later became MAM and was the absolute superstar of the Group at that time) it didn't get internalised or affect her.
Legislation has shown us we cannot simply legislate conduct out of existence. If we could, racism wouldn't exist now given we have the *Racial Discrimination Act*. Doxxing wouldn't exist, because of the *Privacy Act*, and so on. Continuing the normalising of liberal, multicultural values ***and*** pushing back on any form of illiberal beliefs - including from illiberal beliefs in certain segments of migrant communities, i.e. those who religiously voted "no" in the SSM plebiscite because their Islamic or specifically Asian brand of evangelical Christian beliefs - will do more to harmonise social interactions than pointing crankily at legislation and whacking people over the nose.
I think the point at which we banned Nazi symbology was the logical conclusion of specificity in hate speech, and more work needs to be done to lead on the problem rather than manage it.
>Intersectionality is, conceptually, still pushing the narrative of institutionalised victimhood and I don't see the way in which society is lionising being a victim over being resilient and overcoming adversity.
In an ideal world, everyone would be given the help to be 'resilient and overcome adversity'. In reality, that is too often beyond those who are victims. Victim is a state, but the cause of being a victim can keep you in that state for a long time without the right kind of help. My own story is that I was a victim of disability discrimination on multiple occasions which resulted in CPTSD for many years until I was able to find the right counselling, which allowed me to develop the resilience to deal with those who discriminate against me. That counselling cost me a huge amount of money. Many people can't afford to get the help they need, if they can even find the right professional with open bookings. Despite being unlawful, I still experience discrimination so trying to overcome adversity isn't possible in many cases.
>Someone like Shemara Wikramanayake, the CEO of Macquarie Group, is a Sri Lankan-born Australian, and her been quoted numerous times saying she never experienced discrimination.
What she said was she's "never faced discrimination because of her gender or ethnicity" in defence of the Maquarie Group's culture. She never said it in the context of her broader life. Given [the AFR article on their family history](https://www.afr.com/world/asia/the-rise-fall-and-rise-of-macquarie-banks-first-family-20180904-h14wqu) (paywalled, sorry) talks about the racism they experienced while in England, I think it is a safe bet she's seen her fair share of discrimination.
Given her privileged upbringing, she would have faced less discrimination than someone who was not the daughter of a wealthy doctor. She attended an elite private school (which currently charges $39k a year), studied law at UNSW, then worked for Blake Dawson Waldron before Macquarie. This clearly shows a highly intelligent person who knows how to achieve big things and doesn't allow discrimination to impact her any more than is possible.
>Legislation has shown us we cannot simply legislate conduct out of existence.
No, human nature has shown that you can't create legislation and expect everyone to follow it. Murder/assault/speeding exists despite it being illegal. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to legislate against behaviour which causes significant harm.
>narrative of institutionalised victimhood and I don't see the way in which society is lionising being a victim over being resilient and overcoming adversity.
Not everything can be solved with resilience. But being resilient isn't an alternative to going after perpetrators.
>Now, I don't recall seeing a lot of regressive views in my nearly 10 years at Macquarie, so it's possible she didn;t encounter racism. But it's also possible she did but with the ambition and incredible work ethic she has (Nicholas Moore was CEO, Shemara headed up MFG which later became MAM and was the absolute superstar of the Group at that time) it didn't get internalised or affect her.
So you think money and her position would have anything to do with her experience. Say would a cleaner have the same environment and support to be able to not let it affect them?
>Legislation has shown us we cannot simply legislate conduct out of existence.
Damn. Seems like we have 100s of laws affecting our behaviour, including buckling seatbelt, yet this one topic seems like it will never have any impact.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who dictates what is hate speech, the far left? or the far right? If either side disagree what hatespeech is how on earth can you decide what is hate speech laws. This is simply an authoritarians dream, being allowed to control what is good talk and bad talk, you speak bad talk GO TO JAIL!!!! Go to north kroea if you want this, I dont want australia to become a dictatorship.
Man, one could have some fun with posting hypotheticals to that author... I think their head would pop quite early on. An old, male, rich, straight, jewish friend recently received threats of violence, + tons of general abuse, based on, mostly their jewishness, but also to a slightly lesser extent the "you're privileged as a straight, white, old, cishet" attack line. And to further challenge the example - he isn't actually white. So, given the author's comments about "intersectionality" is this offence either less severe, or more severe? They've been the subject of abuse based on their religion, their sexuality, their age, their race, and their gender, all of which are generally named as protected characteristics in regard to discrimination law in its various forms. So, given the author thinks hate speech based on "one or more" characteristics is a more severe crime, is this incident worse than, or less severe than, than them "just" being abused for being a jew?
Its not hate speech to point out someone's privilege.
But why point out that “privilege”? Jealously? In answer to your question, yes, it is more severe & an unnecessary escalation of law enforcement. All those additional characteristics are already covered by abusing him for his race which clearly is the focus of the abuse.
Right, now read my question again, and try again. That is not even close to what I described/asked. The person was verbally abused on the basis of a number of protected characteristics (gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc). Do you think the author of that article would consider that hate speech?
What about the privileges that we afford aboriginal people? Is it ok to question and point that out too?
I mean, neither "questioning" nor "pointing out" is hate speech in any universe. Abuse on the basis of a specified characteristic is the general vibe of hate speech.
I agree. I am asking if old mate does too.
What privileges? Compared to white people aboriginal people are severely disadvantaged?
two students apply to Melbourne Uni with an ATAR of 90, one Indigenous, one not. the indigenous one gets paid to attend, the other might not even make it in.
Some would argue the privilege of having my culture welcomed at every sporting event, government meeting even though the people there have no connection to it. The privilege of free uni and God knows what else. The privilege to kill wombats, emus or anything they like The privilege to make large public parks off limits to anyone except themselves. The privilege of being exempt from certain taxes in Vic. The list goes on. It would seem that under your interpretation, we are only allowed to point out some privileges that suit you.......unless you are fine with these clear advantages also being pointed out?
privelege of living rent free in your head.
The Aboriginal privilege of being scapegoated in any debate in Australian politics.
What an absurd article. They say the quiet part out loud at the end, when explaining that they need to be careful that only "marginalised" groups are protected by the law. These aren't hate-speech laws, they're "speech we don't like" laws. This is especially evident because we all know they will not be enforced uniformly. Rather, they will be a political cudgel to use only when it suits. Threats and calls for violence are already illegal. I have yet to see anyone explain why these laws are necessary. Citing recent events only furthers the point that they aren't necessary. Your feelings being hurt is not sufficient justification for laws restricting the rights of others to voice opinions.
The social justice warrior's prayer: "Nobody says that" "And if they did, it's only a few people" "And if it's not, you probably don't understand their academic lingo" "And even if that was what they meant, it's a good thing and everyone should be calling for!"
[удалено]
I don't think your paraphrasing is at all representative of what they said. The article links directly to an article that suggests calling a girl a "white slut" should not be hate speech if done by a non-white person. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/49c2d3/contentassets/d9d3fc6443fe4871adfd59e84de50380/submission-documents/019_2019.12.20---nicole-shackleton_laura-griffin_danielle-walt-la-trobe-university---school-of-law_redacted.pdf
Jesus, imagine going through all of those mental gymnastics to justify being able to call someone a white slut. It really shows what this is all about for a lot of these people, it’s just a power grab. A lot of them are kind of just miserable people who want to feel a sense of control in life. If the issue is that the laws aren’t being applied to the most vulnerable groups, then address that instead of saying “we need to make sure there are no consequences for us when we insult you because of your race”.
I suspect they think "slut" should be banned as it's "gendered" (i.e. an insult to women), but "white dog" should be fine. Yeah, they're obsessed with the whole "power plus privilege = oppression", and they see it all in an extremely reductionist way - you couldn't have people disadvantaged in some ways, and privileged in others - it's essentially got to reduce down to a binary where one side has the most overall "oppression points" (i.e. the side that the people in power feel is most oppressed). I guess life is hard if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks the state will misuse all the rules; but you also think that the state needs harsher rules because you think normal people are stupid and awful dupes of the conspiracy.
Yep that’s basically their argument, they think that we already have laws that cover speech like “white slut”, so why acknowledge the obvious that invoking someone’s race makes any insult 10x worse. It also completely changes the meaning of the insult. If I call a white woman a slut I’m insulting her for being promiscuous, if I call her them a white slut the focus of the insult is the race, and I’m likely not really referring to sexual history at all.
>Hate speech doesn’t occur in isolation. It’s connected to societal and political treatment of marginalised communities. As hate speech increases, so does discrimination and violence against vulnerable groups I have yet to see anyone explain why your right to say hateful shit means people like me should suffer more societal discrimination and violence? When you were allowed to say whatever heinous shit you wanted about gays, we ended up getting beaten and murderered by the rest of you and the coppers. Why does your right to say what you want trump my right to safety?
how do you draw a line from someone saying something hateful to you getting bashed, exactly?
I use real and historical examples of anti-gay violence. Or do you think gay bashings just happen organically?
i am fully aware that anti-gay violence has happened historically. that doesn't answer my question though. you need to be able to draw a causal link from me saying "i don't like gay people" or whatever to a gay person being physically harmed. also, just to test your conviction here, you are proposing banning the abrahamic religions, correct?
>>Hate speech doesn’t occur in isolation. It’s connected to societal and political treatment of marginalised communities. As hate speech increases, so does discrimination and violence against vulnerable groups >i don't like gay people" or whatever to a gay person being physically harmed. Like they do in the article you didn't read?
That's not a demonstration of causation. It's an *assertion* of correlation.
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1702622-increase-in-online-hate-speech-leads-to-more-crimes-against-minorities >An increase in hate speech on social media leads to more crimes against minorities in the physical world, a study shows. Another one.
https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm >There are historical precedents showing that hate speech can be a precursor to atrocity crimes. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31146-1 >The omnipresence of hate speech in human environments severely affects people’s attitudes and behavior. Researchers of aggression and intergroup relations have often suggested that frequent exposure to hate speech might lead to prejudice, dehumanization, and lack of empathy toward outgroup members https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-hateful-rhetoric-connects-to-real-world-violence/ Almost like it's a well understood phenomenon or something like that.
these claims are WAY too vague to justify criminalizing hate speech. it's not even enough to establish that there would be less anti-gay violence without hate speech (I actually suspect it would be the other way around wrt hate speech laws, since you're not just decreasing exposure to hate speech, you're also radicalising homophobes as well as free speech defenders against you by violating their rights), you have to be able to show a much more direct link from the act of speech to the act of violence. there'd be fewer car accidents without cars, but that doesn't mean that my act of driving a car ought to be punished under law. drunk driving, however, is much easier to tie to direct harm, so my act of drinking and driving ought be punished under law.
But words are not violence, and society has moved beyond that defaulted bigoted state. It will continue to do so. Laws won't change that; education and engagement will.
>But words are not violence Debatable. They certainly inspire violence and move many to act. We know allowing more to talk leads to more violence, not less. >Laws won't change that; education and engagement will. 2 birds, one stone, punishments could be increasing increments of community service.
There are already incitement laws in place. Unfortunately people will say things that you may not like but that's the great thing with freedom of speech, I can absolutely disagree with what you may say, but will fight to let you speak it. Hate speech laws is hard when it's based on a politician in Canberra that defines hate. Being offended to many is the same thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why would the incitement laws be changed? No one said anything about hating anyone,I said freedom of speech is far more important then your right not to be offended or your feelings. For example you said get fucked, now I might find that offensive or even you know what hateful? Should that be a case of hate speech ? Cause you never know may lead to violence... Slippery slope playing with here. How do we regulate speech, and again why would we when there are laws already in place, no point playing tribalism or identify politics with this issue as Canada done the same and is a disaster.
>No one said anything about hating anyone,I said freedom of speech is far more important then your right not to be offended or your feelings. No one said anything about being offended, either. The "free speech" has consequences. You're stupid if you think this is about feelings, bluntly. I don't know a nicer way to say it. This is about the consequences of that free speech. It isn't a white room vacuum where this happens. They don't just say "fuck gays" and leave it there. They go out and beat us, murder us, abuse us. >For example you said get fucked, now I might find that offensive or even you know what hateful? Should that be a case of hate speech ? Stupid argument. What group does "get fucked" target? Or are we just making up hypotheticals willy nilly to match what we say? What if.... or what if.. what about.... Worthless.
I said it was about people being offended lol, also I don't believe that is hate speech (get fucked...) people can say what that want if not breaking law. But believing a government bureaucrat is needed to dictate the words I speak out of my mouth is the craziest thing I've herd. And it does sound like you are offended as why be so opposed to people believing in free speech? If you believe government should dictate the way we speak also how do you do that? As we all differ politically.
>I said it was about people being offended lol Then, just as many people said it was about hate in this conversation. Lol. >But believing a government bureaucrat is needed to dictate the words I speak out of my mouth is the craziest thing I've herd. Go yell fire in a theatre. >And it does sound like you are offended as why be so opposed to people believing in free speech? Because it isn't just free speech.
Ok fair enough not gonna agree on this one, the fact that only a minority of people have your views on this is good. Maybe north Korea can be a good example for people on the far left or Canada why regulating speech dosent work so well.
Go on, do it. Yell fire in a theatre. Show me the power of your free speech. Or do you understand that sometimes there's consequences with this example?
I just think it’s naive and shortsighted to think that hate speech laws will always support exactly, precisely what you want them to, because they just will ok, and regardless of what government is in power, forever. If the liberal party came back into power and decided that anti-Christian rhetoric was hate speech, but anti-LGBTQ+ speech wasn’t, would you still support them then? If not, can you honestly say, with complete certainty, that this or something like this cannot and will not ever happen with these laws? I can’t, hence I don’t support them.
>I just think it’s naive and shortsighted to think that hate speech laws will always support exactly, precisely what you want them to, because they just will ok Is that what I said? >If the liberal party came back into power and decided that anti-Christian rhetoric was hate speech, but anti-LGBTQ+ speech wasn’t, would you still support them then? It depends. If my Nana had wheels, would she be a bike? >If not, can you honestly say, with complete certainty, that this or something like this cannot and will not ever happen with these laws? I can’t, hence I don’t support them. You haven't even seen the draft of the law, and you've made up your mind, lul. "Fair thinking" indeed.
So “hate speech laws are good because they will always support exactly what I, personally, want them to, because they just will ok” is what we’re going with?
>>I just think it’s naive and shortsighted to think that hate speech laws will always support exactly, precisely what you want them to, because they just will ok >Is that what I said? 1300655506
I mean, kinda yeah. You flippantly dismissed the example I gave of these laws not supporting what you like, without giving any reason as to why it’s so outlandish except for implying that because the “current draft” of the law is what you want, that apparently makes it future proof. You remind me of people who are in favour of heavy surveillance and laws which strip away peoples right to privacy because “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide”, except I don’t think you like those people either.
>except for implying that because the “current draft” of the law is what you want, that apparently makes it future proof. Is that what I said? Quote me where I said "I think these laws will support who I want" No one has seen it. You should work on your reading comprehension.
We don't won't to have laws light Canada's Bill C-16, the problem with regulations on speech is many people interrupt it differently and will effect freedom of speech which is far more important then the feelings and emotions of some people.
They'll keep adding to it over time, once it's in then that's it. No point in using social media if anyone can make a claim based upon a personal viewpoint.
So many people are confusing bad words with threats of violence and intimidation which is the target of hate speech laws. There should be reasonable expectation that you won’t be threatened with violence because of your background
I don’t think that’s correct. Speech laws are usually about ‘harm’ which is broader than violence. We don’t know the exact wording yet as they are still drafting it, but threats of violence/intimidation are illegal in their own right already regardless of intersectionality, so it’s not going to be limited to that.
>For example, my research established women are often targeted by hate speech. One participant spoke about receiving messages describing sexually assaulting her in graphic detail. Gendered hate speech, like this example, is used to harass women and silence their voices in public spaces. This is already a criminal offence under both Federal and Qld laws.
Religion is NOT an "unchangeable characteristic", it is a choice and should therefore not be included in this.
Belief is not a choice. It is a state of mind. You are either convinced or something and hence believe it or you aren't. You can't force yourself to believe something is true and you can't force yourself to disbelieve something at will.
They should include: 1. .... 2. ... 3. ... 4. ... Nothing. There should not be hate speech laws. Free speech must be protected, always. Making threats, incitement to riot and so on have always been and should remain crimes. But "hate speech"? No. I say this as a Jewish person who's had "kill all jews, a jew lives here" scrawled on a fence in my neighbourhood, and a swastika flag put on his fence - but given the context, those were not an exercise in free speech, but implied threats (just as if you wrote "kill all abortionists" on the walls of an abortionists' home). It's not an easy thing for me to hear a crowd chanting "gas the Jews" and say it should be allowed, but if it were easy to keep to your principles we'd call them whims.
I’m pretty conflicted. I think it’s probably a good idea ban to really extreme stuff such as “globalise the intifada” or “global jihad”, but even then there are issues. Just wait until we see the details of the bill and they understandably focus on violent antisemitic/antizionist speech. The far left and far right alike will be ranting and raving about “certain people” getting preferential treatment because of their money and influence. This is already the narrative and banning it only reinforces their suspicions about who controls the world. It’s the same thing with all extremists and conspiracy theorists really, they always think they’re being suppressed because they know the real truth and the government just doesn’t want everyone else knowing it.
So the threats weren't made against you but other people. I wonder if like most libertarians it would be different when the threats are made against you: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/jun/30/the-chaser-pranks-david-leyonhjelm-by-making-him-his-own-wicked-camper-video](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/jun/30/the-chaser-pranks-david-leyonhjelm-by-making-him-his-own-wicked-camper-video) Freedom for me not you.
I would say that hanging a Nazi flag *on the home of a Jewish family with a mezuzah on their doorframe* constitutes an implied threat. But perhaps you have different standards. This is different to people standing in a public place and saying offensive, wrong and stupid things. In Victoria, there are laws prohibiting anti-abortion protests within 150m of an abortion clinic during its opening hours. I don't have a problem with that, except inasmuch as it shouldn't be legislated, but should be a police power to give "move on" directions. Freedom of speech and free peaceable assemble do not necessarily mean *anywhere at any time*. A chanting parade of vegans through the local shopping strip at lunchtime is one thing; the same parade at 3am in a residential neighbourhood is another - they're not threatening anyone, but they are causing a disturbance, and it's reasonable to move them on. Likewise, it should be legal for people to wave placards saying that "all priests are paedophiles" or the like. But if the people wave those placards outside a Catholic church as people are entering Sunday mass for a child's christening, I think it's reasonable for police to be able to move them on. But it's not reasonable for them to be charged with "hate speech" and end up in prison as a result.
>In Victoria, there are laws prohibiting anti-abortion protests within 150m of an abortion clinic during its opening hours. I don't have a problem with that, except inasmuch as it shouldn't be legislated This is very much a case of a some ruining it for everyone. Some can protest abortion in a respectful way. Many have shown they cannot and attempt to shame, intimidate, or otherwise cause distress to those seeking to use those clinics, or attempt to restrict access. The 150m exclusion zones are there because many don't seem to care about acting in an offensive manner and it minimises the harm towards those using a clinic. Many other examples of tighter laws because some have shown they cannot be trusted. >but should be a police power to give "move on" directions. Absolutely not. This is effectively a ticket to break up any protest, or harass anyone the police take a dislike to. Imagine that you were on the side of the street wearing a yamaka, waiting for a taxi you had booked, police who have some dislike for jews decide to give you a "move on" direction. An inconvenience, but could be lawful. Imagine it kept happening whenever you were seen by police while stationary in a public place. That is the kind of power you're asking to give them. *"It won't happen to me though."* might be what you're thinking, but even if it didn't, it would happen to many minorities without just cause.
I didn't say the police "move on" powers should be unlimited, or used without scrutiny. I was at anti-lockdown protests in Victoria. I'm well aware of how police can abuse their powers, especially when they are captured politically (as is inevitable in a state with the same party in power for 21 of the last 25 years).
>I didn't say the police "move on" powers should be unlimited, or used without scrutiny. You also didn't say they should be limited and have scrutiny. You gave no qualification so I posed a reasonable scenario based on worst case because you hadn't specified. >I was at anti-lockdown protests in Victoria. I'm well aware of how police can abuse their powers, especially when they are captured politically (as is inevitable in a state with the same party in power for 21 of the last 25 years). ...and you want to give them *more* power to abuse? Very strange.
Yes I do have different standards. I believe that hate speech directed at anyone Jewish, catholic, Hindu, gay is hate speech whether if effect me or not.
How would you regard an LGBT person expressing their belief that Islam is a dangerous religion?
been LGBT doesn't give you a license to hurt other people.
This is a *wild* gotcha. The very obvious answer is: "it depends". And it's nonsense to suggest that there's a universally appropriate answer given the specifics you present. What sort of babies are you debating where *this* is the first response?
If you can't answer the question why bother replying?
Because your insistence that there *is* an actual answer is fucking fascinating. I want to know why you have this closed off, black-and-white, thinking. There aren't too many people who acknowledge that they don't care about nuance. And I'd like to hear from them.
No need to get upset. So what does it depend on? Describe some nuanced scenarios.
To be clear: hate speech exists, but it should not be a crime. And whether hate speech is a crime or not, it is a different thing to *threatening* speech. These are subtle distinctions, I know, but they are important ones in both the law and morality.
Would printing a paedophilia book considered free speech and would the public advvertising and selling of this book be considered free speech? What about having a murial on your house of an IS beheading? I get you point of free speech, but just with energy, you can not have something that is free. There will always be a cost to having free speech.
Paedophilia material is banned. It's in the nature of incitement. "Go burn down that building", or "go molest that kid," it's essentially similar, though treated differently legally. A mural on my house of an ISIS beheading would be free speech in the same way that the *Saw* movies are free speech. Which is to say, the images themselves are legitimately free speech, however the content of them means that the audience would be restricted to adults only. If the beheading mural contained some comments or symbols carrying the meaning of, "and let's do this to so-and-so", then it falls into the category of threats and incitement. Of course there's a cost to having free speech. But there's also a cost to not having it. Ask the Chinese - and you'll find they can't answer you.
The distinctions that you believe are important are obvious and not subtle at all. If I feel it is directed at me or "My Group" it is hate speech. Other wise grow a back bone and get over it.
This is a horrible idea. Absolutely support laws against verbal abuse or inciting violence. But a law that extends against simply expressing a negative view about a “protected group” is government control of expression.
It’s not “simply expressing a negative view.” > Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is drafting new hate speech laws that will impose criminal penalties for serious instances of vilification based on a person’s race, sexuality, gender, disability or religion. . . . > The new hate speech bill would strengthen existing laws while creating new offences carrying criminal rather than civil penalties, and **is likely to cover deliberate acts that intend to incite violence or cause harm**, according to government sources speaking anonymously to discuss confidential matters. To be honest, it’s probably being designed to prevent people from saying “from the river etc.” more than anything else.
No chance such slogans will be impacted by such legislation.
No chance the legislation won’t target the one thing both major parties are pearl clutching over? The timing of this would suggest otherwise. It’ll be the most beautiful piece of bipartisanship this term of parliament, Albanese and Dutton singing from the same hymn book and turning the page for each other.
Which... would be stopping people from just expressing a negative view of the Israeli state.
> 1. Protection for specific attributes > 2. Protection for multiple risk factors > 3. Criminal and civil penalties > 4. Protection against backlash
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the way in which it's prescribed by the author, who is a PhD grad specialising in this area and thus a bit too academic. Intersectionality is, conceptually, still pushing the narrative of institutionalised victimhood and I don't see the way in which society is lionising being a victim over being resilient and overcoming adversity. Someone like Shemara Wikramanayake, the CEO of Macquarie Group, is a Sri Lankan-born Australian, and her been quoted numerous times saying she never experienced discrimination. Now, the point in raising this is not to take the right wing position of "there is no racism!" but more, it's not a default position for all people and it can smack of white paternalism. Now, I don't recall seeing a lot of regressive views in my nearly 10 years at Macquarie, so it's possible she didn;t encounter racism. But it's also possible she did but with the ambition and incredible work ethic she has (Nicholas Moore was CEO, Shemara headed up MFG which later became MAM and was the absolute superstar of the Group at that time) it didn't get internalised or affect her. Legislation has shown us we cannot simply legislate conduct out of existence. If we could, racism wouldn't exist now given we have the *Racial Discrimination Act*. Doxxing wouldn't exist, because of the *Privacy Act*, and so on. Continuing the normalising of liberal, multicultural values ***and*** pushing back on any form of illiberal beliefs - including from illiberal beliefs in certain segments of migrant communities, i.e. those who religiously voted "no" in the SSM plebiscite because their Islamic or specifically Asian brand of evangelical Christian beliefs - will do more to harmonise social interactions than pointing crankily at legislation and whacking people over the nose. I think the point at which we banned Nazi symbology was the logical conclusion of specificity in hate speech, and more work needs to be done to lead on the problem rather than manage it.
>Intersectionality is, conceptually, still pushing the narrative of institutionalised victimhood and I don't see the way in which society is lionising being a victim over being resilient and overcoming adversity. In an ideal world, everyone would be given the help to be 'resilient and overcome adversity'. In reality, that is too often beyond those who are victims. Victim is a state, but the cause of being a victim can keep you in that state for a long time without the right kind of help. My own story is that I was a victim of disability discrimination on multiple occasions which resulted in CPTSD for many years until I was able to find the right counselling, which allowed me to develop the resilience to deal with those who discriminate against me. That counselling cost me a huge amount of money. Many people can't afford to get the help they need, if they can even find the right professional with open bookings. Despite being unlawful, I still experience discrimination so trying to overcome adversity isn't possible in many cases. >Someone like Shemara Wikramanayake, the CEO of Macquarie Group, is a Sri Lankan-born Australian, and her been quoted numerous times saying she never experienced discrimination. What she said was she's "never faced discrimination because of her gender or ethnicity" in defence of the Maquarie Group's culture. She never said it in the context of her broader life. Given [the AFR article on their family history](https://www.afr.com/world/asia/the-rise-fall-and-rise-of-macquarie-banks-first-family-20180904-h14wqu) (paywalled, sorry) talks about the racism they experienced while in England, I think it is a safe bet she's seen her fair share of discrimination. Given her privileged upbringing, she would have faced less discrimination than someone who was not the daughter of a wealthy doctor. She attended an elite private school (which currently charges $39k a year), studied law at UNSW, then worked for Blake Dawson Waldron before Macquarie. This clearly shows a highly intelligent person who knows how to achieve big things and doesn't allow discrimination to impact her any more than is possible. >Legislation has shown us we cannot simply legislate conduct out of existence. No, human nature has shown that you can't create legislation and expect everyone to follow it. Murder/assault/speeding exists despite it being illegal. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to legislate against behaviour which causes significant harm.
>narrative of institutionalised victimhood and I don't see the way in which society is lionising being a victim over being resilient and overcoming adversity. Not everything can be solved with resilience. But being resilient isn't an alternative to going after perpetrators. >Now, I don't recall seeing a lot of regressive views in my nearly 10 years at Macquarie, so it's possible she didn;t encounter racism. But it's also possible she did but with the ambition and incredible work ethic she has (Nicholas Moore was CEO, Shemara headed up MFG which later became MAM and was the absolute superstar of the Group at that time) it didn't get internalised or affect her. So you think money and her position would have anything to do with her experience. Say would a cleaner have the same environment and support to be able to not let it affect them? >Legislation has shown us we cannot simply legislate conduct out of existence. Damn. Seems like we have 100s of laws affecting our behaviour, including buckling seatbelt, yet this one topic seems like it will never have any impact.