568
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago

I have a reason to post a Riker after what happened in the U.S. on Tuesday! Oh god, it's better than therapy...

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago

I understand why people seem to think we should tolerate these views, because "muh free speech," but to them, I say:

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] anzo@programming.dev 14 points 1 month ago

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."

[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz 32 points 1 month ago

Imagine being his lawyer and having to come up with an argument to defend him. Yeesh

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

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

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

"My support of political ideologies which directly propose genocide is completely non-violent, trust me bro."

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago
[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

And you aren't part of thee group were genociding

[-] yamanii@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

It's the tolerance paradox, you can't tolerate these people and have a peaceful democracy. This is the answer.

[-] in4aPenny@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Didn't we used to kill Nazi's and celebrate their demise in movies like Indiana Jones?

[-] emmy67@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Apparently we didn't kill enough

[-] in4aPenny@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

No apostrophe in a non-possessive plural noun.

But yes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jon_Servo@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Self-described Nazi

Yeah, there's a term for that: Nazi. Just call them that.

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hubi@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

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?

[-] 5wim@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago

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

[-] vividspecter@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Nah, it's definitely him. It looks to be an error in the caption. Or his lawyer looks uncannily like his client.

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] gratux 45 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Krzd@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

Nazi ideology is never an opinion. It's a threat to human rights and democracy.

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

This is the right take, and the fact that these people aren't seeing it is insane.

[-] prole 27 points 1 month ago

No, we've just seen enough at this point to understand that absolute freedom of speech/expression is a mistake.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wolfram@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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?

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 22 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Wolfram@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] TurnpikeRangers@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

"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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago

Fascism is not an opinion, it's a crime.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

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.)

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago

Hate speech is not free speech. That's as simple as it gets. Most rational countries understand this.

[-] Geobloke@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

This is not the correct way to do this.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Do it again 😉! Let's rack that baby up to 20 to life!.... How many years did he get?

[-] gerbler@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

It's literally in the summary. 1 month.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
568 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39401 readers
1864 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS