Summary
Australia has enacted strict anti-hate crime laws, mandating jail sentences for public Nazi salutes and other hate-related offenses.
Punishments range from 12 months for lesser crimes to six years for terrorism-related hate offenses.
The legislation follows a rise in antisemitic attacks, including synagogue vandalism and a foiled bombing plot targeting Jewish Australians.
The law builds on state-level bans, with prior convictions for individuals performing Nazi salutes in public spaces, including at sporting events and courthouses.
I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It’s quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism [1], which I personally espouse.
References
Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones. You say you don’t want to tolerate them socially, but when it comes to any actual legal intervention, suddenly, they should be tolerated. If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is.
Then you should reconsider your ideology. If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views.
If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. If you don’t do that, then you inherently are tolerating them to an extent.
Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:
(referencing your other comment for consolidation purposes)
So what we’ve established is that:
Your stance is categorically "I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that."
So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?
I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?
It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.
Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.
This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by “being Nazis”.
Generally speaking, espousing/engaging in the support of many harmful beliefs traditionally held by Nazis, and generally fascists more broadly since Nazism is just a branch of fascism, such as:
Practically speaking, I think it would probably make the most sense to judge whether somebody is a “Nazi” legally, by requiring at least a few of these tenets to be met before any trial could take place to prevent false imprisonment and the like, but as these views are objectively harmful to society, I don’t believe they should be allowed to flourish, full stop.
If you don’t support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people’s land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.
To me, it feels like you are conflating some things here: I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo. Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors, and I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them; but I don’t believe that a government should take action unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.
I could be wrong in my interpretation, but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don’t believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion. The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is
but that would depend on how you are defining “support”.
deleted by creator
I do the same thing. I don’t apply every possible way I conduct myself to how I think the government should regulate people’s actions, but when it comes to Nazism, I specifically believe the government should intervene, not because I personally wouldn’t do what they’re doing, but because their actions are observably, categorically harmful to society.
So you think society should oppose them, but when an institution to represent the will of society has the power to oppose them, you now no longer believe it’s justified to oppose them. You’re contradicting yourself.
Any furtherance of a Nazi agenda puts every individual in a free society under threat by its very nature. If you allow a Nazi to spread their rhetoric, you increase the likelihood of an actual fascist regime happening that harms millions, if not billions.
We fine people for speeding all the time even if they don’t kill someone in a car crash, because we know that if more people are speeding, the likelihood of a car crash will increase, and that is obviously undesirable if your goal is to preserve human life.
We should do everything we can to prevent Nazis from gaining any power, whether through political office or social relevance, because we know that when they are allowed to do so, the likelihood of a fascist regime existing that is harmful to the preservation of human life grows.
My opinion is that we should nuke X country and kill all of its citizens. I will spread this message, attempt to gain support for it, and hopefully get to a point where a member of the movement can gain political power that allows them to launch those nukes. Should I be allowed to do so, or should I only be stopped once I’ve already gained the power to launch those nukes, and have my finger over the button? After all, it’s just a difference of opinion.
Opinions can be harmful, not just because they can cause legitimate mental harm to those in the immediate vicinity on the receiving end of that rhetoric, but also because they can lead to harmful outcomes, that would otherwise not exist had the opinion not been allowed to spread.
If you support censoring/imprisoning those who hold that belief, then you support doing so to Nazis. If you don’t support doing so to Nazis, then you don’t know what Nazis do, or stand for.
This is yet another example of you holding contradictory views, where in one case you’re okay with the thing being stopped, but the moment someone with the “Nazi” label does those same things, you begin to drop your support for actually doing anything meaningful to prevent the ideology from spreading.
I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech [1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association [1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship [2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech [3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).
All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.
References
Yes, it does. The extent to which I support any individual’s freedom of speech only extends until that speech causes demonstrable harm. Unfettered free speech has no beneficial social utility compared to free speech that has restrictions for things that cause great social harm.
People often get caught up in the idea of “free speech = good, therefore anything I disagree with should still be allowed to be said,” when it doesn’t actually provide any value to let them do so, and actually harms society in the process. People have the right to say almost anything they want, but if we know the things they’re saying inevitably lead to fascist systems of power that oppress and kill millions, then restricting their free speech as much as possible is always justifiable, because doing so directly reduces the chances of people dying unjustifiably.
I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.
Liberalism has proven ineffective at keeping fascists out of power I say we do something else.
deleted by creator
You can’t out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist.
If you’re going to do something like jail subversive elements, you best make sure you can’t be considered a subversive element yourself.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you think the current government (USA) is fascist. If so, would you mind describing exactly why you think that? Do note that I’m not disputing your claim — I’m simply curious what your rationale is.