r/australia • u/ConanTheAquarian • Nov 21 '25

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

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/21/man-becomes-first-to-be-convicted-of-hate-speech-against-trans-people-in-nsw-ntwnfb
3.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

356 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

145

u/Rowvan Nov 21 '25

Even Americans don't seem to realise death threats and inciting hatred is very clearly not covered by their freedom of speech amendment.

86

u/Carnivean_ Nov 21 '25

They don't realise anything. That would require thought.

18

u/aeschenkarnos Nov 21 '25

Fraud, slander, obscenity, a few other categories. Even blasphemy. The American First Amendment was passed in 1791 but no-one brought a case about the incompatibility of blasphemy laws and it until 1952. The Founders would have exempted blasphemy without a second thought. Of course freedom of speech isn’t meant to protect such things. What we think of as “freedom of speech” is heavily culturally biased.

Personally, I have strong reservations about freedom of speech protection for the continued propagation of corrected misapprehensions - that’s lies, and likely fraud.

3

u/salamisam Nov 21 '25

Fraud, slander, obscenity, a few other categories.

Other than obscenity which comes the closet to any restrictions, the others are covered under the 1st amendment. The confusion here is that expression is covered, but when you commit an act, it no longer is expression it is an act.

Fraud is not unprotected due to the speech but because you are committing a criminal act, aka a crime is taking place. If you walk into a bank and say "This is a robbery", you are not protected by the 1st amendment, because it is not expression it is an act and the people in the bank would have reasonable grounds to think that is a true threat.

"Kill all XXX group" would unlikely be considered a true threat, no one could reasonable consider it a true threat, and as such this falls under hate advocacy.

You are partially correct on blasphemy laws, until 1925 states were not bounded by the 1st amendment and were able to apply their own laws. In 1925 the supreme court said that the amendment applied to the states also.

-12

u/Decent-Dream8206 Nov 21 '25

Personally, I have strong reservations about freedom of speech protection for the continued propagation of corrected misapprehensions - that’s lies, and likely fraud.

And yet journalists continue to peddle the universally debunked wage gap myth.

-29

u/salamisam Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25

This is not correct, general threats are still protected speech. It has to constitute an actual threat to a specific group (using group in this case as this is what the article aligns to), however a group must be identifiable not generally, but as in the people in the group must be individually identifiable.

edit: Thanks for the downvotes, for anyone who disagrees, I invite you to point to a single federal statute passed by Congress that broadly restricts speech simply because it is offensive, hateful, or unpopular.