Australian lawmakers have banned the performance of the Nazi salute in public and outlawed the display or sale of Nazi hate symbols such as the swastika in landmark legislation that went into effect in the country Monday. The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.

The crime of publicly performing the Nazi salute or displaying the Nazi swastika is punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the Reuters news agency.

Mark Dreyfus, Australia’s Attorney-General, said in a press release Monday that the laws — the first of their kind in the country — sent “a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts.”

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Should do the same in every nation on earth, nazism cannot be allowed to flourish again. The cost of life is too high

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s weird that I have to say this but this should also be done in Latin America.

      Like, no, you’re not Aryan, you’re just pale. And you’re not even pale! Wtf, you’d be the first one in the gas chambers, Pedro Contreras.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Technically it is illegal here in Canada.

        I work in set Decoration in Canada and dealing with Nazi paraphernalia has a whole documentation process. There’s a handful of prop houses in the States that traffics in the stuff and the paperwork to import it has to be very carefully handled or else it gets seized at the border. Once the stuff is owned by the production company it must be kept under lock and key when it is not onset and removing it from the set or the lockup without proper signed off on authorization is a firing offence.

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s depressing that we have to jump through so many hoops for a stupid symbol that should have been relegated to a laughing stock of losers in the past.

          Sadly, we’ve got a whole new wave of young losers with plastic / lead brain rot that made them susceptible to this shit.

          Just look at those two morons in the article…

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        The recent round of anti semitism incidents has nothing to do with nazis, though, I suspect the same in Australia, this is probably politicians bring politicians more than anything.

        • Quokka@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not even antisemitism related.

          My state did this already last year and it’s to combat the alt-right/white supremacists. Jewish people don’t really factor into it as much as their hate for Muslims/Black people.

          Trying to tie into Oct 7th and antisemitism seems like a bit of propaganda.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It very literally is not. If you’re referring to “free speech”, that’s a whole other thing.

        Still, it is pretty patchwork and ambiguous. Almost got that flag-burning amendment though! Member that one? Before ‘gay marriage’ and ‘the war on Christmas’ we had ‘flag-burning’ as a very srs point of intellectual ‘discussion’.

        • IdiosyncraticIdiot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Incorrect, the supreme court has many times over ruled “hate speech”, which doesn’t have a legal definition in the US, is protected under 1st amendment. Calling for violence is not.

          I am free to say “I hate [insert protected class/person/group/etc]” without legal consequences.

          Although I am technically free to say “Let’s cause harm to/attack [insert protected class/person/group/etc]”, legal consequences could follow since call to violence.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed. Hence the issue with “hate speech” in quotes.

            When Is Offensive Speech Unprotected?

            Speech which is merely offensive is always protected by the First Amendment. However, some types of speech which are often conflated with “hate speech,” but which go beyond expressions of opinion can, in limited circumstances, be unprotected by the First Amendment.

            Let’s talk about incitement to violence and harassment.

            (Tl;dr: incitement to violence and harassment are not protected speech)

          • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I seem to recall that when southern states wanted to prosecute Martin Luther King, Jr for “hate speech” on the theory that his calls for equality amounted to anti-white racism, the way SCOTUS dealt with that was by punting on the question of what hate speech is or isn’t.

            By taking the ‘hate speech’ stick away from states, the high court effectively ruled that Nazis had the right to rallies under the rubric of free speech. It was this optimistic dithering on the court’s part (surely, the way forward is free speech and everybody will use that in good faith right?) that is part of why the US’s stance on hate speech diverged from that of Europe and the commonwealth

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where the first speech absolutists at?

              No seriously, there are persuasive arguments for protecting speech that is utterly abhorrent… who remembers their John Stuart Mill well enough to chime in?

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Now imagine Trump or someone like him is deciding what’s hate speech.

              No. Fuck that.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope. It is. Using racial slurs and displaying a swastika and sieg heiling is very much protected by the 1st Amendment.