Do they just jail those convicted of this, or do they also require undergoing significant therapy during the sentence? Because if they don’t, they’re only going to ensure increased levels of the anger & resentment which led to those extremist views to begin with.
I year in prison seems excessive to me for a 40 second speech. I could imagine a few hundred hours of community service.
People kill cyclists and get less punishment than this idiot.
As time passed, and History got devalued as a subject in favour of technology subjects, I guess it was always inevitable that people would lose awareness of what Fascism is, and why it should not be allowed to return.
deleted by creator
This man was an active member of the NSN and quite literally a Nazi intent on furthering genocide.
Charge him with planning a terrorist act then, if that’s what he was doing.
I think he should be punished for the speech but I don’t think the punishment fits the crime.
Being jailed for a year surely will make him change his mind about being a nazi /s
He’ll just move to America, where we’ll probably make him a mayor or some shit.
Guys…it’s bad here.
Why? What’s happening? I never hear anything from over there.
I would like to relocate to wherever you are, please. I’m so very tired of being here in bangbangshootyland.
considering australia has neo-nazis that went to US, murdoch, and nick adams.
He cant, he won’t be allowed in with a criminal conviction :)
Just gotta wait til the democrats are back in power then they’ll roll out the red carpet.
You must work as a projectionist.
Bet it was the antisemitism that got him time.
Yep. Pretty sure the magistrate’s last name is Germanic, too. Went to German elementary school for a couple years as a child decades ago, and they really tended to make the kids feel guilty for the sins of their fathers.
The 34-year-old took the stage at the end of the march and endorsed neo-Nazi views before being immediately arrested by police.
On Wednesday, he was sentenced at Downing Centre local court to 12 months behind bars for intentionally inciting hatred.
The magistrate, Sharon Freund, criticised Koschel’s 40-second speech – in which he twice called Jews the “greatest enemy” – as clearly antisemitic and vilifying a vulnerable community.
Jailed for “inciting hatred”…… Jesus Christ we’re a joke of a country.
The guys a racist fucking moron, but jailing people for voicing their opinions is terrifying and authoritarian. I hope anyone celebrating this remembers their reaction when people with opposing views to them are in power throwing people in jail over words.
Crisafulli in QLD wants up to 2 years in prison for anyone saying ‘from the river to the sea’ as well as ‘globalise the intifada’.
Also: “The ban will also apply to any phrases, spoken or written, decided by the attorney-general of the day”.
decided by the attorney-general of the day
EDIT: I hope everywhere he goes, someone plays ‘Two Strong Hearts’ by John Farnham.
It’s wild that pro-Palestine/anti-israel protestors are being lumped in with neo Nazis. Particularly when Israelis and neo Nazis have so many common opinions …
Bingo. Once you start policing words it’s a slippery slope to full on government authoritarian control.
Context is really important.
I agree that the QLD legislation is scary - it’s bullshit that their legislation is going to “proscribe” that specific phrase, so if one utters it then that’s an offense regardless of intent or context.
I heard a rally organiser on the steps of the Melbourne State Library yell From the River to the Sea and people in the crowd yell back, Kill Them. This was on October 8th 2023.
Other instances where freedom of speech does not apply is planning a crime, making plans for a bank robbery is just words, right?
I mean, I’d hope you’d have to prove intent to commit a crime, which would be the crime. Saying the words alone shouldn’t be a crime.
Paradox of tolerance.
Tolerance is only paradoxical when you go out of your way to not view it as a social contact.
When tolerance is the social contact, then everyone is protected by it except those who go out of their way to not be protected by it.
That concept is, pardon my French, complete bullshit.
Remember - you’re being intolerant of people who hold views you don’t like. Think what these laws mean when, not if, people with opposing views to you get in power.
It’s not about being intolerant of views you “don’t like” it’s about being intolerant of intolerant views, that’s why it’s a paradox. Personal feelings aren’t involved only whether the view seeks to persecute another.
The fact you’re assuming anyone calling out intolerance is doing it from an emotional position implies some rather distressing things about your world view tbh.
And who decides what views are “intolerant”?
It’s not an arbitrary decision, Intolerance is the opposite of tolerance. I don’t know how to make this any clearer.
Intolerance is defined as:
unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.
You’ll note that this definition is entirely internal, it is a behaviour based solely on your own actions, not an outside forces opinion of your actions. A man alone on an island could act just as intolerant of an arbitrary opinion as someone immersed in society.
So you agree that jailing someone for voicing their beliefs because you disagree with them is being intolerant?
Now we are back to the paradox of tolerance, which you would realise if you actually tried.
there is a difference between holding views and using words to commit crimes
Using words should almost never be a crime. That’s the point. These are fascist, authoritarian laws.
There are DEFINITELY times when using words should be a crime, to take it to an extreme since that’s the realm you live in, Should someone not be persecuted for screaming obscenities at strangers? Or using words to drive someone to suicide? Or using words to lie and incriminate? If someone says to you they truly plan to kill you have they committed a crime?
It really is.
The thing is it has very strong im-15-and-this-is-deep energy and it has it’s own wikipedia page and it’s something that every idiot on lemmy and reddit has heard of and it makes them feel superior to trot it out at every opportunity.
The irony is, as you say, every time someone references the paradox of intolerance they’re literally invoking it in order to justify being intolerant.
Yes, it’s true that some opinions and behaviors should not be tolerated. However, the things which we as a society choose not to tolerate need to be very carefully considered in each and every instance.
The paradox of intolerance allows one to merely brand a person or group of people you don’t like as being “intolerant” and then you’re free to exclude them from your circle of tolerance.
good. but not long enough
