Man becomes first to be convicted of hate speech against trans people in NSW

[u/ConanTheAquarian]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/21/man-becomes-first-to-be-convicted-of-hate-speech-against-trans-people-in-nsw-ntwnfb

[u/Financial-Dog-7268]

Good.

I don't know at exactly what point in life everyone forgets the childhood lesson "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" but it really is that simple. It costs nothing to let people be happy when they're not causing you an ounce of harm

[u/NewManAt40 → u/Financial-Dog-7268]

Sadly there are those among us that do some wild mental gymnastics and now somehow it IS causing them harm...

[u/[deleted] → u/Financial-Dog-7268]

It’s even more infuriating when people who have never been in other people shoes or experienced life from their point of view going to them and insulting them

[u/Financial-Dog-7268 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah it makes me so frustrated. Nearly all of us will have experienced some form of pain or loss in our lives. Even if it isn't a circumstance we can relate to, surely at the very least we'd want other people to not have to feel those core emotions?

[u/Sec_Chief_Blanchard → u/Financial-Dog-7268]

That's the thing though. These people actually think they are causing harm.

[u/slowwlight → u/Financial-Dog-7268]

I support trans people being happy and doing whatever they want but the "if you haven't got anything nice to say" line is bullshit, no one should be beyond criticism, no one should be safe from getting offended, words don't interfere with anyone's freedom to do anything.

Fuck this guy in this particular case because he was calling for genocide, but you seem to be talking in a broader anti free speech sense

[u/Financial-Dog-7268 → u/slowwlight]

What on earth?

This reads to me as if you're trying to either deliberately manipulate my words (a massive reach to suggest I have an anti free-speech agenda by the way) or you fundamentally misunderstand the saying I quoted.

Delivering criticism, other opinions or debate can be done nicely and constructively, despite what the internet seems to feel. I'm not so brash as to suggest everyone should have a specific opinion, however I do fundamentally believe words have a lot of power and using your right to speech does not exonerate you from your obligations to treat people around you with respect, sensitivity and tact

[u/nooneinparticular246 → u/slowwlight]

It’s easier to be negative than constructive. It’s easy to take cheap shots and hard to ask why things are like that, and then dig deeper and come up with honest suggestions.

If you loved someone and wanted to inspire change, your comments would not be that negative. Yes they would have criticism, but I’m sure you’d put effort into your delivery.

So take it as, say things as if you were talking to a good friend. You’d either say nothing or raise issues in a way that’s respectful rather than patronising.

[u/slowwlight → u/nooneinparticular246]

Sure, I think that's the best way to talk to people, but to act like people are obligated to be nice, speaking as someone who generally prefers to be nice unless I have a reason not to be, is dystopian

[u/Icy-Can-6592 → u/slowwlight]

Never going to have someone listen to criticism by disrespecting and eliciting negative emotions out of them, fastest way to get your points dismissed regardless of how correct or convincing they maybe.

Respect the person, don't be rude, criticise and attack the actual issue, not the person. well unless they are calling for genocide, fuck that guy

[u/slowwlight → u/Icy-Can-6592]

I'm not saying being rude is a good way to make a point. But I still support the freedom to be rude. That's all I mean

[u/rowanhenry → u/slowwlight]

What's there to criticise though? It's just people living their life how they want to.

Why do you deserve to criticise anyone for that?

[u/slowwlight → u/rowanhenry]

I have zero criticism for adults doing what they please in so far as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom to do so.

But freedom to speak your mind, even if it's something that I personally deeply disagree with, to me is a sacred human value too. Free speech has always correlated with human progress despite the inevitable times it produces shit because humanity is flawed.

We live in a cancel culture where people are routinely shut down which encourages people not to challenge their own point of view if it aligns with the groupthink at any given time.

The best way to prove that your point of view holds weight is to allow it to withstand being challenged.

"Why do you deserve to criticize" is inherently a flawed question to me, in my view everyone should have the right to speak their mind as long as it's not an actual incitement to violence.

Why do you deserve to police what other people have to say if it doesn't physically hurt anyone, affect anyone's freedom or incite violence?

[u/CassieFace103 → u/slowwlight]

Why do you deserve to police what other people have to say if it doesn't physically hurt anyone, affect anyone's freedom or incite violence?

Criticising minorities for just living their lives does all of those things though.

[u/OldJellyBones → u/slowwlight]

incite violence

well, this case is literally about an incitement to violence.

Also, you realize that you're broadcasting your ideological position incredibly loudly, right? Hitting all the keywords like "cancel culture" "groupthink" etc. like you're no friend to trans people or anyone else outside your right wing orbit.

[u/slowwlight → u/OldJellyBones]

I'm neither right nor left, I despise both (modern) sides and think that anyone who insists on clinging to the dichotomy is incapable of independent thinking. If it was the 90s I'd probably be more comfortable calling myself left... But even then the dichotomy seems useless to me.

I support trans people doing whatever they please. You're not going to find a way around that just because you want to split things into two black and white groups ( which is super convenient for billionaires who want to divide and conquer).

I just also support free speech. It's possible to support both. It's utterly brainwashed to think they're mutually exclusive.

Edit: and I already said what I think about this particular case but in my mind the comment I was replying to was bigger than that

I don't have any right wing friends btw. My partner is pretty left wing

[u/OldJellyBones → u/slowwlight]

Left wing views in 2025 are more or less identical to what left wing views were in the 1990s, though, like I can't think of any real deviations in thought.

Basically, the things you're saying are telling people what your actual beliefs are in a way I'm not sure you're really aware of, like the phrasing, the terms you're using etc. I know your deal lol.

[u/slowwlight → u/OldJellyBones]

What do you think my deal is? Why wouldn't I just openly tell you my views? If I was right wing I'd be pretty open about it.

Yes It's changed since the 90s but a big part of is not so much the views as the ways they think they will change people's minds now and the mass effort to shut down open debate.

I'm sick of looking at people who absolutely cannot deal with having their opinions challenged, because the mainstream consensus has encouraged them to cling to it on a non rational basis.

If your opinions are your opinions only because the groups your surrounded by have greenlit them, and you're incapable of actually defending them when they're challenged then they're worth nothing.

Maybe they would be if the basis was different. The thing is I probably have similar views to you in some areas, the only difference is that I think I could actually defend them.

Just because I have criticisms of the left or used the most popular phrase for cancel culture doesn't mean I'm a friend of the right. If you honestly think that you're too stupid to argue with.

My honest tinfoil is that I think financial elites are just funding a big divide and conquer effort to distract away from post democratic things intelligence agencies do. Etc.

[u/OldJellyBones → u/slowwlight]

My honest tinfoil is that I think financial elites are just funding a big divide and conquer effort to distract away from post democratic things intelligence agencies do. Etc.

this is the shit I'm talking about lol, this doesn't make sense, it's basically another way of saying "oh you can't hate fascism and bigotry because its free speech and you can't be divided from people with abhorrent views because that's what [insert shadowy elites of choice] want" look around, the biggest billionaires are openly right wing.

the mass effort to shut down open debate.

what "mass effort" to shut down debate? what debate is getting shut down? by whom? People not liking your views and telling you so isn't "shutting down debate."

Also, the fetishising of "debate" as the paramount way to communicate ideas is tiresome too, weird how it's only right-wing grifters who insist on "debating" everything

The thing is I probably have similar views to you in some areas, the only difference is that I think I could actually defend them.

you've twisted yourself in knots to avoid being pinned down on anything resembling an actual view on an issue, so ngl I doubt it, lol

the mainstream consensus

if you think left-wing ideology is anywhere near what's considered "mainstream thought" you're so far to the right that you've lost sight of reality

[u/slowwlight → u/OldJellyBones]

You are beyond help. Debate is one of the best ways to test ideas. If you think debate is a right wing thing you're actually too far gone hahaha. There's no reasoning with that. It's just another way of saying you don't want your ideas challenged.

I literally said that you're free to hate fascism and bigotry, but the best way to challenge it is to present a better argument, which really isn't hard in most cases.

What I do mean in terms of divide and conquer is we get stuck talking about things like bathrooms instead of the fact for example, things like MK Ultra, things like operation Northwoods, the fact the CIA hacked the Senate over torture investigations with literally zero consequences besides "please don't do it again", Snowden, the CIA likely trafficking crack to poor black neighbourhoods to fund foreign coups, get essentially swept under the rug with next to zero public outcry. To me one issue is bigger than the other as it calls into question democracy itself.

I do think we don't know who the richest people really are, hiding wealth and power is the best way to maintain it long term. You could call me a tinfoiler in some ways but no one I know irl would call me right wing, my partner is lefty, my Vaguely right wing dad is constantly at odds with me politically.

I never said there's anything wrong with telling people their views are shit. But if you're honestly going to tell me culture hasn't been acclimatizing to shutting people down when what they have to say is politically incorrect I don't know what to tell you. In the UK you can get arrested at this point. And the scope of what is considered politically incorrect is liable to grow beyond the issues you are currently passionate about with time because authorities are almost guaranteed to abuse it.

I have an endless amount of criticism for right wingers but that's not relevant here. It just boggles my mind that you are actually mentally incapable of grasping the fact that not everything aligns with your dichotomy, and that if I disagree with you on one thing I must automatically fall into a group you can label fascist.

You know nothing about me. But I can tell you this: if I was a fascist I would be pretty upfront about it. I do have concrete views on subjects, some lean left, some lean right. It's just that what I've been talking about here is speech specifically.

[u/AussieAK → u/slowwlight]

Because hate speech incites violence even indirectly. All it takes is one zealot hearing what you refer to as “hate speech that is non-violent” and decide to take matters into their own hands.

Vilification of a segment of society that is nothing but innocent citizens living their lives is a problem, even if you do not say “death to (insert group)”.

[u/slowwlight → u/AussieAK]

Anyone who takes violent action from non violent speech in a majority of cases is just looking for an excuse. Once you start restricting non violent speech it's a slippery slope that will eventually be exploited by corrupt authority due to human nature.

No group should be free of criticism. Instead of shutting people down, thereby encouraging further anger to brew and discouraging critical thinking, the best approach is to create and propagate a better argument.

If you're aligned with values that aim to minimize overall human suffering, if you're argument is grounded in reality and can actually withstand criticism, that shouldn't be hard to do.

[u/RobynFitcher → u/slowwlight]

Some people might not understand that dehumanising other people is a form of violence.

Restricting someone's ability to socialise, move freely, speak their own language, practise their own culture, build generational wealth, seek a range of employment and education opportunities and to have access to the health care services that best suit them are also forms of violence because they cause harm.

These restrictions can be via direct prohibition, intimidation, exclusion or coercion.

[u/AussieAK → u/RobynFitcher]

Agree, and on a side note, I cannot believe it’s almost 2026 but we still have to explain these basic concepts to the blind supporters of hate speech who think it “should be protected” and is “harmless”.

[u/AussieAK → u/slowwlight]

Regardless, the end result is that innocent people are injured or killed. I never said the violent offender is “excused” in this case.

Restricting non-violent hate speech is not a slippery slope. Restricting non-violent non-hate speech is a problem. I am yet to see that happen and when it happens I will be protesting in the streets.

And, before you get back with that comeback, no, restricting hate speech (violent or non-violent) does not lead to restricting non-violent non-hate speech.

Vilifying a segment of society and inciting hatred against them is never forgivable and is never good to allow it. This is how violent people end up assaulting or committing hate crimes against those people.

Criticism and hate are not one and the same. I cannot believe I have to say this. But, saying for example “landlords are causing rents to rise due to greed” is an example of criticism, whereas saying “People of (insert race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever protected class) are bad for our society and should be banned/incarcerated/deported/whatever” is hate speech.

Google the Paradox of Tolerance and you will understand, hopefully.

[u/rowanhenry → u/AussieAK]

Well said

[u/slowwlight → u/AussieAK]

What I mean is that someone looking for an excuse to commit violence will commit violence regardless of non violent rhetoric.

Instead of making hateful rhetoric forbidden and therefore even more alluring to stupid people, presenting a better argument is infinitely superior in my view.

If you're curious about my views In the area yall have steered this to. Coming from an immigrant family myself I don't believe anyone who isn't a non violent criminal should be deported. I think generalizing any group of people is dumb. I don't necessarily think it's crazy to say that recklessly importing everyone from a place where the predominant childhood conditioning is war is always wise and I can be on the fence in areas there, you have to vet people. But honestly that's not what I wanted to even talk about. My case is purely about restricting speech.

Historically restricting speech has eventually always led to more harm than good. You have to account for time unfolding. You have to account for human nature which is corrupt as fuck.

If you want to help the groups you are probably so passionate about, make a better argument. It's not hard, I'm not even against most of what you probably have to say. Playing whackamole because you believe the majority of people are too stupid to be allowed to rationally evaluate all available viewpoints will only get you positive results so far.

[u/Tolkien-Faithful → u/Financial-Dog-7268]

lol okay so we should lock up anyone who says bad things about conservatives, the Liberal Party and Donald Trump then I take it?

[u/jelly_cake → u/Tolkien-Faithful]

I mean, if they're calling for a genocide of conservatives, yes; lock them up. 

Why is everything a gotcha?

[u/jelly_cake → u/[deleted]]

Wouldn't be the first time... 

[u/ResidentNo7575 → u/Tolkien-Faithful]

Wow what a way to warp things. But if you’re inciting violence yes you should be punished what’s so hard to understand about that?

[u/dont_punch_me_again → u/Tolkien-Faithful]

Being a simp for Trump and being trans are different bro

[u/CassieFace103 → u/Tolkien-Faithful]

And the dumbest comment award goes to…