Summary
Jacob Hersant, a self-described Nazi, was sentenced to one month in prison, becoming the first person in Australia jailed for performing an outlawed Nazi salute.
Convicted in Victoria for making the salute outside a courthouse in October, Hersant’s act followed new legislation banning the gesture.
Magistrate Brett Sonnet justified the sentence, citing Hersant’s intent to promote Nazi ideology publicly.
Hersant’s lawyer argued that his actions were nonviolent and claimed they were protected as political expression, stating plans to appeal the ruling on constitutional grounds.
I have a reason to post a Riker after what happened in the U.S. on Tuesday! Oh god, it’s better than therapy…
Good.
It was a mistake letting Nazis and others practice their terrorist views in public. Freedom of expression is not and never should be an absolute right.
I understand why people seem to think we should tolerate these views, because “muh free speech,” but to them, I say:
The paradox of tolerance doesn’t exist once you understand that tolerance is a social contract.
If one party doesn’t adhere to the contract, then the other party also doesn’t have to either.
I keep forgetting who said it, and I will rephrase terribly but there’s this antifa quote that goes something like “A person of color, homosexual, or Jew doesn’t really have a choice to stop being who they’re. Meanwhile, a fascist can stop spreading their hate towards others. That’s all we ask, and we won’t be tolerant.”
Also, what does it mean to “tolerate” the existence of minorities? What exactly are we “tolerating”? Tolerance in every other context means to accept deviation from a standard or some negative outcome.
Framing anyone’s mere existence as a thing to be “tolerated” is to imply they are deviant or negative.
That’s where the paradox of tolerance loses me. I don’t think we should be tolerant in general. I think we should make value judgements about what is good or bad and act accordingly. Every society does this, and pretending we’re above it all and completely neutral is dishonest.
And if the “tolerance” is of differing views, diversity of thought is also good, not a bad thing to be tolerated.
It’s simple: we identify behaviour that is bad, like bigotry and hatred, and we say no. We’re not rejecting it because it’s merely different, and to accept that framing is to accept the cry-bullying of fascists. We reject them because they suck, and we don’t owe them shit about it.
Imagine being his lawyer and having to come up with an argument to defend him. Yeesh
A lawyer one time said that his job when defending someone that couldn’t be defended is guaranteeing that the prosecutors do their job property just because the guy is totally guilt
“My support of political ideologies which directly propose genocide is completely non-violent, trust me bro.”
As long as you comply
And you aren’t part of thee group were genociding
It’s the tolerance paradox, you can’t tolerate these people and have a peaceful democracy. This is the answer.
Didn’t we used to kill Nazi’s and celebrate their demise in movies like Indiana Jones?
Apparently we didn’t kill enough
Would be easier to continue if our state apprati didn’t protect them. You’d get shot by police for shooting at Nazi’s now.
That’s because the nazis are cops
Remind me what Americas 2nd Ammendment is about?
No apostrophe in a non-possessive plural noun.
But yes.
I see what you did their’e
Self-described Nazi
Yeah, there’s a term for that: Nazi. Just call them that.
I think it’s to clarify that it’s not coming from the judgement of the newspaper. The Nazi himself is calling himself a Nazi. So, there’s no doubt about it.
Yeah, who the fuck “desrcribes” themselves as a Nazi? Ah right, a Nazi would do that.
Since I doubt he is a certified member of the National Socialist Party, I’d argue the more accurate term would be “neo-Nazi”.
It should be “self-avowed”
This dude looks so much like the Austrian neo-nazi Martin Sellner that it’s actually uncanny. I genuinely thought this was him. Maybe they are long lost brothers?
The pictured dude in the article is apparently
Tim Smartt, the lawyer for Jacob Hersant, arriving at court in Melbourne, Australia, on Friday
and not the shithead himself. But I don’t disagree
Nah, it’s definitely him. It looks to be an error in the caption. Or his lawyer looks uncannily like his client.
Do it again 😉! Let’s rack that baby up to 20 to life!.. How many years did he get?
It’s literally in the summary. 1 month.
The canaries are dying.
deleted by creator
Y’all are so used to boot licking that you pretend it is a fashion accessory.
I don’t like Nazis for sure, but I also don’t like people being jailed for expressing their views and speech. So my thought would be to get like two or three hundred protesters together and all go to that courthouse and make that salute and make them arrest every one of them. If the court system wants to waste their own time and tons of taxpayer money, prosecuting people for free speech, then let them do so. Kind of like Iran using $2,000 drones to cost Israel $2 million missiles.
I’m sorry, since when was being a nazi in public in any way tolerable? We aren’t talking about “I don’t like cereal” here, the nazis were arguably one of the darkest times of our history. Trying to revive it is absolutely not acceptable.
Never give the government power that you would not want turned against you because governments change. I vehemently disagree with their cause, but I would also vehemently defend their right to express their opinion.
Nazi ideology is never an opinion. It’s a threat to human rights and democracy.
This is the right take, and the fact that these people aren’t seeing it is insane.
No, we’ve just seen enough at this point to understand that absolute freedom of speech/expression is a mistake.
I’ve seen the right redefine woke and legislate it on a whim to prosecute political enemies, what’s stopping the opposition from using this law against you or I?
The world is more complex than that, and I’m sure you know it.
It’s also more complex than “they sanctioned someone who is adamant about being a literal nazi, so we have to go show support to fascism”.
Germany learned their lesson 80 years ago. The US thinks anything goes. And how is that going, recently?
Even with the absolutist free speech the US is known for, there are still reasonable limitations to it. Like fighting words and yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
You understand things are complex yet advocate for something absolute? O.o
Never expect what you know does not exist.
No, fuck off with your take. That is free speech taken to a literal extreme. Allowing free speech to this extent encourages fascist and Nazi movements to flourish. Nazis should feel uncomfortable or unable to express these views.
Eco warriors should worry about being imprisoned for going to demonstrations. These are the kinds of things that can happen when you give your government power to jail people they do not like.
Edit: What happens if Australia’s equivalent of Donald Trump gets in office and enact the policy mentioned above?
Not every country has such a paranoid view of their government as Americans do. Some systems function a bit better when the people want something done.
Wasn’t it Australia that I read about basically having concentration camps in 2020 for the pandemic? All I’m saying is that you do not question your government at your own peril.
They were not concentration camps, people arriving in Australia were asked to isolate for 2(or maybe 3) weeks.
At least look things up before giving political hot takes. And while you’re looking things up, try to understand what paradox of intolerance is.
concentration camps
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.
Or as they’d say down there:
“Yeeh, nooar.”
(I make this joke with love, Australia 🫶 lol)
Despite free speech supposedly legally allowing protests and demonstrations there is still a real risk of being imprisoned.
My point is even “free speech” is not total free speech in the United States for example. There are still compromises in free speech so we may preserve order. Allowing free speech to that extent lets these movements flourish.
I absolutely agree. But we as a society need to be very careful because we cross some divides at our own peril. Today it might be Nazis making a salute. Tomorrow it might be journalists writing oposing views.
“You can’t censor Nazis without jeopardising everything journalism is about.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
And you can and should, btw, censor Nazis. Or you’ll end up like Dumbfuckistan.
Edit: What happens if Australia’s equivalent of Donald Trump gets in office and enact the policy mentioned above?
See because they have reasonable limits on supporting fascism publicly, there’s less of it going around, so they don’t exactly have an equivalent demented child-raping fascist to vote for.
“I don’t like Nazis” “We should get 300 people to give the Nazi salute outside a courthouse”. Shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up. I say this with all the sincerity in my heart, you are a moron and you are part of the problem. You are contributing to the rise of alt-right and fascist leaders around the world. There is zero leeway in this argument, everything Nazi related is bad and none of it should be tolerated.
Yes, and I think that you should be one of the people who shows up outside the courthouse and does it. Not because you are a Nazi, but because they will arrest you and you’re making a point.
You’re a dipshit who doesn’t understand how the world works.
Oh what’s that? I’m being mean? This is what you’re going to do next?:
Asswipe.
deleted by creator
Fascism is not an opinion, it’s a crime.
Who decides what is and is not a crime? Does a crime need a victim? It does the victim have to be physically harmed in a crime for it to be considered a crime.
Go ahead, go outside onto the streets, and proclaim “I want lots of people murdered. The more we murder, the better. We really should get started now, what are you waiting for” and see where that’s going to end, even in places like the US. Then realise that showing the Nazi salute expresses that exact same thing.
There’s no such thing as non-criminal fascism. Thus advocating for it is advocating for, condoning, approving etc. of crimes which is a crime literally everywhere, rightfully so.
Slippery slope is fallacious reasoning. Seems pretty easy to draw a line here, and being a fucking Nazi is beyond it.
300 Nazis outing themselves and going to prison to (hopefully) be rehabilitated with counseling?
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
(I am aware the prison system is not super fantastic in Australia, but we’re miles ahead of the US, and some of this 300 may actually be dissuaded. And also, they’re Nazis, so. If you believe your fellow human beings are animals, then you don’t get free speech, sorry.)
Australia doesn’t have the first amendment because we aren’t the US. We do however think that if you want to talk shit and start fights, we have the legal right to tell you to calm the fuck down with extreme prejudice, see exhibit a.
Hate speech is not free speech. That’s as simple as it gets. Most rational countries understand this.
This is not the correct way to do this.
Because it works and shows the foolishness? Yeah.
What foolishness? Removing Nazis from civilized society?
No, trying to enforce unenforceable laws, if a bunch of people went and did this and made the state arrest and prosecute all of them, it would be an extreme burden to the taxpayers unless they just didn’t decide to prosecute the cases. The point would be to punish unenforceable laws economically. Here in the United States, a form of that would be to protest absolutely every traffic ticket that you ever receive on purpose. Even if you did wrong and you know it, The point is that it wastes their time and energy that they could be using for real issues on trivial shit.
bro is arrested
unenforceable laws
🤔
It just seems performative and works against your other point. It would be nice to flip a magic switch and get rid of Nazism, but at the same time, you’re right that you can’t just decide what free speech is allowed and what is when it comes to this. I get it for words or phrases that cause immediate danger like, bomb, fire, etc.
Everything else is a slippery slope, especially given how creative our supreme court is (US)
Not how it works. Gestures, like words, have a meaning. Even in the USA, saying certain words in certain ways can get you arrested; harassment, threats, etc. This gesture is meant to convey threat and to harass religious and racial minorities. There is no other reason to make the gesture.
This gesture is meant to convey threat and to harass religious and racial minorities.
I’d even take it a step further and say it’s a gesture made by a very dangerous minority that threatens the vast majority.
Nothing says “I’m willing to forgo my humanity to wage pointless violence on literally the rest of the world.” like the cringiest dipshit salute ever devised.
I’m Canadian. We have hate speech laws. 99% of us are never going to be hindered by or in any way affected by these hate speech laws. Because 99% of us aren’t going around being Nazis and calling for violence and the extermination of ethnic races.
