Australian Politics Forum - Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14994
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #75 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:38pm

chimera wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 12:00pm:

A country is a group of people in an area of land.
It has a 'government' a collection of wise genius people (or just one in US)
It makes 'laws'. spelled l a w law. pronounced lore. it means a rule.
If 2 of the people in the area of land do bad stuff, it's not good.
Any two people such as tgd ..
maybe not, there are robot data loops.
anyway, any two people.
People are plural persons.

(The two people are named Larisa and Kurt
https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2025-release...

I pointed out that - on the basis of the clip containing his actual words, the individual concerned did not commit "hate speech", but merely told the truth regarding the influence of the zionist Jewish lobby.

Bobby warned me to be careful, in asserting that opinion.....

Then chim(p) chimed in with an irrelevancy about 2 people, when the issue is what one person said.

Chimera being a chimp, as usual, has gone off in his own frolic, defining "plural" etc.

Meanwhile bobby and I are still waiting for a sensible answer....in vain, I suppose....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:50pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6076
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #76 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:39pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 11:16am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 3:13pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:23pm:

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.

We in fact have Common Law rights, which are a far more effective guarantee of free speech than any 'bill of rights' The issue is that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

Common Law can always be overridden by legislation.

Rights defined are rights limited. Effectively this means that unless a right is laid down in law it does not exist, whereas under common law unless something is expressly prohibited by law it is legal, and when such a prohibition appears in court its legality is tested against precedent and for a judge to set a precedent that goes against common law they must give a really watertight reason for doing so.

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52334
At my desk.

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #77 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:40pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 11:24am:

Quote:

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.

The constitution says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Clearly it is infringed. Citing the constitution to claim that you support one style of infringement, but not the other, makes the constitution meaningless - a mere talking point in the real debate, albeit a strong and persistent one. There is nothing fundamentally different in the way the US and Australia restricts gun use. Both are entirely dependent on the democratic process. Even the US constitution itself can and occasionally is changed. I am surprised they haven't gotten rid of the firearms bit already, given how meaningless it has become. If the US voting public actually had the appetite for a complete gun ban, the constitution would not stop them.

It always, always falls back on the voting public to decide what rights and freedoms we have, and where to draw the line where they are conflicting. The US constitution is a grand rhetorical flag in the ground, that can be ignored or picked up and moved on a whim.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14602
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #78 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:50pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:38pm:

Then chim(p) chimed in with an irrelevancy about 2 people, when the issue is what one person said.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 11:54am:

chimera wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 8:13am:

It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'.

Cwlth. 'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.

Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?

I'd like to know that as well.

[/quote]

You asked which two people. You still don't comprehend what a law is. This one refers to restraint on speech. It's not a new policy. Today is Sunday.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14602
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #79 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:02pm

Belgarion wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:39pm:

for a judge to set a precedent that goes against common law they must give a really watertight reason for doing so.

Same for depriving the masses of constitutional rights. It's how the n----- lost the right to vote in Dixie. Or why Guantanamo Bay exists. The good old 'reasonable man' gives the best pub test for judges.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14994
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #80 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:07pm

chimera wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:50pm:

It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'.

Cwlth. 'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.

Quote:

chimp You asked which two people.

You confused again?

I proffered my opinion the individual should not be charged with 'hate speech', on the basis of his actual words.

bobby warned me I might be violating the new 'hate speech' law ....

Quote:

You still don't comprehend what a law is.

More idiocy from the resident chimp; we all know what a law is (as opposed to how it is interpreted by the courts).

Quote:

This one refers to restraint on speech. It's not a new policy. Today is Sunday.

Correct.

And?

ie did the individual who openly stated his own thoughts at a rally - alone, with no 'conspiring' with another person - commit "hate speech", in your opinion?

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #81 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:11pm

Belgarion wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:39pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 11:16am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 3:13pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:23pm:

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.

We in fact have Common Law rights, which are a far more effective guarantee of free speech than any 'bill of rights' The issue is that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

Common Law can always be overridden by legislation.

Rights defined are rights limited. Effectively this means that unless a right is laid down in law it does not exist, whereas under common law unless something is expressly prohibited by law it is legal, and when such a prohibition appears in court its legality is tested against precedent and for a judge to set a precedent that goes against common law they must give a really watertight reason for doing so.

The US is also a Common Law nation, so Americans have common law rights (that can be restricted or abrogated) by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot).

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 14994 Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #82 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:16pm MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:11pm: The US is also a Common Law nation, so Americans have common law rights (that can be restricted or abrogated) by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot). How does the US incorporate Common Law into its legal system?
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #83 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:17pm MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:11pm: can be restricted or abrogated by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot). Gun laws say that's incorrect.
Back to top	IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #84 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:21pm

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:40pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 11:24am:

Quote:

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.

The constitution says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Clearly it is infringed. Citing the constitution to claim that you support one style of infringement, but not the other, makes the constitution meaningless - a mere talking point in the real debate, albeit a strong and persistent one. There is nothing fundamentally different in the way the US and Australia restricts gun use. Both are entirely dependent on the democratic process. Even the US constitution itself can and occasionally is changed. I am surprised they haven't gotten rid of the firearms bit already, given how meaningless it has become. If the US voting public actually had the appetite for a complete gun ban, the constitution would not stop them.

It always, always falls back on the voting public to decide what rights and freedoms we have, and where to draw the line where they are conflicting. The US constitution is a grand rhetorical flag in the ground, that can be ignored or picked up and moved on a whim.

Given that there are estimated to be nearly 400 million guns in private ownership in the US, despite some of their legislators, presidents and state governors over more than 2 centuries, who would have approved of (nearly) banning all gun ownership in the way any Australian government can do it, i.e., without needing to hold a constitutional referendum.

I'd say that indicates that the 2nd Amendment is more than a rhetorical talking point.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14602
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #85 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:23pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:07pm:

chimera wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:50pm:

You asked which two people.

You confused again?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 11:54am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 8:17am:

Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?

I'd like to know that as well.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #86 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:23pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:16pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:11pm:

The US is also a Common Law nation, so Americans have common law rights (that can be restricted or abrogated) by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot).

How does the US incorporate Common Law into its legal system?

States are common law jurisdictions. Judges rely on precedent for many areas unless a statute or the Constitution overrides it.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #87 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:26pm thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:16pm: How does the US incorporate Common Law into its legal system? now that does explain a few things about tgd.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52334
At my desk.

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #88 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:28pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:21pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:40pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 12:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 11:24am:

Quote:

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.

The constitution says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Clearly it is infringed. Citing the constitution to claim that you support one style of infringement, but not the other, makes the constitution meaningless - a mere talking point in the real debate, albeit a strong and persistent one. There is nothing fundamentally different in the way the US and Australia restricts gun use. Both are entirely dependent on the democratic process. Even the US constitution itself can and occasionally is changed. I am surprised they haven't gotten rid of the firearms bit already, given how meaningless it has become. If the US voting public actually had the appetite for a complete gun ban, the constitution would not stop them.

It always, always falls back on the voting public to decide what rights and freedoms we have, and where to draw the line where they are conflicting. The US constitution is a grand rhetorical flag in the ground, that can be ignored or picked up and moved on a whim.

Given that there are estimated to be nearly 400 million guns in private ownership in the US, despite some of their legislators, presidents and state governors over more than 2 centuries, who would have approved of (nearly) banning all gun ownership in the way any Australian government can do it, i.e., without needing to hold a constitutional referendum.

I'd say that indicates that the 2nd Amendment is more than a rhetorical talking point.

They haven't banned guns to the same extent as us because there is broader public support for gun ownership in the US. No other reason. What some presidents, legislators and state governors thought over the last two centuries is no more irrelevant to current US gun laws than what a random Australian MP from a few generations back thought about our laws. Neither country is a dictatorship.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #89 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:34pm

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:28pm:

They haven't banned guns to the same extent as us because there is broader public support for gun ownership in the US. No other reason.

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage, because there are no constitutional prohibitions against doing so.

Hence, there aren't 40 million guns in private ownership in Australia.

Back to top

IP Logged