The Politics Thread 2024

[gangrenous]

Others are allowed to write bad 'haiku'.

Those people who write
Bad haiku should be locked up
Luckily none here…

[T_R]

Others are allowed to write bad 'haiku'.

Those people who write
Bad haiku should be locked up
Luckily none here…

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[gerg]

But by your own admission a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Why not there? I think that we both know these are more than just a bunch of middle aged guys chanting in the park. They had mobilised all around the country and have history of insighting violence.

There are both civil and legal remedies in place for the incitement of violence. As I said, you should be allowed to say it, and you should then accept the consequences of that up to the limit of the law.

When I talk about 'drawing a line' it would be much closer to the point of the actual act of physical violence.

These guys are dicks, what they are saying is dangerous and hurtful, but I don't get to tell other people what they should say or think, and that's how it should be.

I think that we'll need to agree to disagree here. You seem to be appealing to a slippery slope fallacy. If these guys were dressing like that and heading to Hyde Park to recite Shakespeare, then all good. But you know and I know that is not what was going to happen, and that violence inevitably follows these clowns. Why do we need to wait for the inevitable? I've got no problem with drawing a line in front of a group that 99% of Australians find abhorrent. And I've no concern that doing so will inevitably lead to people being thrown in gaol for criticising our dear leader.

And one day my wife will almost certainly smother me in my sleep. But we can't charge her with Probably Murder. I'll almost definitely speed on the way to work tomorrow, but until I hit that speed camera you can't do anything. We don't punish people for what they'll probably do, and it's not up to you or I to decide what we think will happen.

Maybe they were going to recite the Bard. Our legal system provides the benefit of the doubt, and even then you need to have been accused of actually doing something, not just thinking about doing something.

But they weren't arrested for something that they may do. There were no charges, no one is in the lock up for violence. It's a false argument. They were simply moved along.

My ISIS beheading comment is an exaggerated comment but in TR and Papa's utopia (some call it a dictatorship) who explains to the family of the beheaded one ...

"oh ISIS was just hanging out on the nature strip planning the beheading but they hadn't technically done anything wrong. Unfortunately by the time our security arrived your daughters head was no longer attached to her neck ... <shrugs> sorry there was nothing we could do".

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

Precisely gerg, and I haven’t seen papa or T_R explain why assembling under Nazi ideology isn’t already considered speaking those threats of violence.

Everyone knows what Nazis and their symbology stand for. Just by gathering as Nazis they are saying “We want to murder sections of the population for how they were born”.

I just don’t accept that T_R would be cool to be down the park with his kids and have a group assemble with threats of violence against him and his family written on their shirts. There’s no way in my mind he’s like “No wait, let’s hear these guys out today it’s free speech after all”.

Even if he claimed that, it would make him a very unique person indeed, and it’s not something a normal person would tolerate, nor should it ever be something they have to tolerate. It is not something they should have to actively seek an injunction against.

Allowing Nazi gatherings does nothing for our society. Zero tolerance.

[papabear]

And one day my wife will almost certainly smother me in my sleep. But we can't charge her with Probably Murder. I'll almost definitely speed on the way to work tomorrow, but until I hit that speed camera you can't do anything. We don't punish people for what they'll probably do, and it's not up to you or I to decide what we think will happen.

Maybe they were going to recite the Bard. Our legal system provides the benefit of the doubt, and even then you need to have been accused of actually doing something, not just thinking about doing something.

circling back to this one.


This is why I am a firm advocate against life insurance policies.

Its an incentive for the above.

[papabear]

Precisely gerg, and I haven’t seen papa or T_R explain why assembling under Nazi ideology isn’t already considered speaking those threats of violence.

Everyone knows what Nazis and their symbology stand for. Just by gathering as Nazis they are saying “We want to murder sections of the population for how they were born”.

I just don’t accept that T_R would be cool to be down the park with his kids and have a group assemble with threats of violence against him and his family written on their shirts. There’s no way in my mind he’s like “No wait, let’s hear these guys out today it’s free speech after all”.

Even if he claimed that, it would make him a very unique person indeed, and it’s not something a normal person would tolerate, nor should it ever be something they have to tolerate. It is not something they should have to actively seek an injunction against.

Allowing Nazi gatherings does nothing for our society. Zero tolerance.

I think that is where me and you differ, I have a lot of tolerance for people gathering together whether it is to go on a bushwalk or do a nazi german cosplay.

Going back to american history x and higher education...

I am ok with skin heads getting together and getting on the piss or grouping in a park and reading the mein kempf to eachother.

Same as I am ok with ISIS/ HAMAS some muslim brotherhood group getting in the park and reading poems on jihad and how the whole world is going to burn for their wickedness together.

I am also ok people with darker skin gather together to smoke weed and read african poetry or talk about the greatness of their lineage and how they should rule the world and take out other races together.

I draw the line at doing it.

I do not want my children doing it or the people I know doing it, but im not going to stop others or try to control them, just because in my utopia they would have better paths to pursue then the above **** ones.

I also bolded the above sentence because I do not think gathering is speaking, I think it is odd that you are trying to either change the meaning of words or conflate two things that are clearly different things...

[gangrenous]

If we’re aware they’re a Nazi group then they are by definition not keeping it to themselves. They are making a public statement through their words, actions, or symbolism. That in itself is sufficient to convey to those around them that they are a threat. That they support an ideology that drove the most well known mass murder in history.

So I guess we do differ. I am more than happy to see none of the groups you mentioned being permitted to assemble and conspire to murder. That’s a world I choose to live in.

It’s ironic that you would generally lambast the far left for taking ideological purity to the point of harm. To me this is a right wing equivalent for free speech.

Last point I think portraying them all as Nazi German cosplayers does a great disservice to those who suffer at the hands of some of them.

[T_R]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

[T_R]

Story time.

In Japan, far right (and these guys are seriously faaaaar right) drive around in huge black vans, festooned with slogans and mounted with air raid siren size loud speakers. They set up at busy intersections, clamber up onto the roof and launch into the most stunning diatribes against, variously, Chinese, inter-racial marriages, foreigners in Japan, various treaties and whatever else catches their attention.
They used to be quite intimidating. The locals shuffle by quickly, and foreigners tend not to make too much eye contact, if you know what I mean. But one day we (my group of foreign drinking friends), after a Nickman-esque afternoon on the cans, all walked out and started cheering them. We applauded the outrageous stuff. We got a little chant going in support of them. The half-Japanese guy burst into roaring support when they launched into a sermon on the evil of mixed marriage.
Soon, all the locals walking past were in hysterics of laughter. The guys on the roof started losing their place. They got all flustered. Soon, they packed up and left.
Next week, same time and same place, it happened all over again. Same result, but with the locals lingering to join in the fun. Our far right friends packed up and left, and never came back to that spot.
You don’t need to suppress dumb ideology, you need to shine light into it and mock it for what it is. When you reveal that the emperor has no clothes, it falls apart anyway.

Sorry, dumb story and badly told, but something I believe in.

[Sid]

Story time.

In Japan, far right (and these guys are seriously faaaaar right) drive around in huge black vans, festooned with slogans and mounted with air raid siren size loud speakers. They set up at busy intersections, clamber up onto the roof and launch into the most stunning diatribes against, variously, Chinese, inter-racial marriages, foreigners in Japan, various treaties and whatever else catches their attention.
They used to be quite intimidating. The locals shuffle by quickly, and foreigners tend not to make too much eye contact, if you know what I mean. But one day we (my group of foreign drinking friends, after a Nickman-esque afternoon on the cans, all walked out and started cheering them. We applauded the outrageous stuff. We got a little chant going in support of them. The half-Japanese guy burst into roaring support when they launched into a sermon on the evil of mixed marriage.
Soon, all the locals walking past were in hysterics of laughter. The guys on the roof started losing their place. They got all flustered. Soon, they packed up and left.
Next week, same time and same place, it happened all over again. Same result, but with the locals lingering to join in the fun. Our far right friends packed up and left, and never came back to that spot.
You don’t need to suppress dumb ideology, you need to shine light into it and mock it for what it is. When you reveal that the emperor has no clothes, it falls apart anyway.

Sorry, dumb story and badly told, but something I believe in.

that's gold

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[samvucago]

Story time.

In Japan, far right (and these guys are seriously faaaaar right) drive around in huge black vans, festooned with slogans and mounted with air raid siren size loud speakers. They set up at busy intersections, clamber up onto the roof and launch into the most stunning diatribes against, variously, Chinese, inter-racial marriages, foreigners in Japan, various treaties and whatever else catches their attention.
They used to be quite intimidating. The locals shuffle by quickly, and foreigners tend not to make too much eye contact, if you know what I mean. But one day we (my group of foreign drinking friends), after a Nickman-esque afternoon on the cans, all walked out and started cheering them. We applauded the outrageous stuff. We got a little chant going in support of them. The half-Japanese guy burst into roaring support when they launched into a sermon on the evil of mixed marriage.
Soon, all the locals walking past were in hysterics of laughter. The guys on the roof started losing their place. They got all flustered. Soon, they packed up and left.
Next week, same time and same place, it happened all over again. Same result, but with the locals lingering to join in the fun. Our far right friends packed up and left, and never came back to that spot.
You don’t need to suppress dumb ideology, you need to shine light into it and mock it for what it is. When you reveal that the emperor has no clothes, it falls apart anyway.

Sorry, dumb story and badly told, but something I believe in.

Sounds exactly like how the GH forums operate

[gangrenous]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

[Dr Zaius]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

[T_R]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

[T_R]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Ive really really tried to find any conceivable 'strawman' in this post, but it continues to elude me.

[Dr Zaius]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

No confusion here. I'm just saying, try applying your little anecdote to a bunch of nazis and get a real time demonstration the difference between free speech and assault.

[T_R]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

No confusion here. I'm just saying, try applying your little anecdote to a bunch of nazis and get a real time demonstration the difference between free speech and assault.

I don't know any NAZIs. I see some groups that the media has dubbed as such, but I haven't heard them say anything so cant form my own opinions on it.

[Botman]

Im on the fence on this but on that post im not sure that's really true. There are extremely large and well funded teams units within law enforcement that are dedicated to anticipating crime.

No one is going to die if they dont act on neo nazi's spewing some racist ****, vs a group of terrorists planning to bomb a shopping centre, so it's obviously different. But i am just making the point that the legal system (specifically the law enforcement side) does act on anticipated crimes in some instances.

[Dr Zaius]

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

No confusion here. I'm just saying, try applying your little anecdote to a bunch of nazis and get a real time demonstration the difference between free speech and assault.

I don't know any NAZIs. I see some groups that the media has dubbed as such, but I haven't heard them say anything so cant form my own opinions on it.

A large group dressed in black and balaclavas led by Thomas Sewell, a identifying as part of the National Socialist Network, a neo nazi group. You're a clever guy and these aren't difficult dots to join.

[T_R]

Im on the fence on this but on that post im not sure that's really true. There are extremely large and well funded teams units within law enforcement that are dedicated to anticipating crime.

No one is going to die if they dont act on neo nazi's spewing some racist ****, vs a group of terrorists planning to bomb a shopping centre, so it's obviously different. But i am just making the point that the legal system (specifically the law enforcement side) does act on anticipated crimes in some instances.

Which crimes do the police act on in prior to the act of that crime?

[Botman]

Im on the fence on this but on that post im not sure that's really true. There are extremely large and well funded teams units within law enforcement that are dedicated to anticipating crime.

No one is going to die if they dont act on neo nazi's spewing some racist ****, vs a group of terrorists planning to bomb a shopping centre, so it's obviously different. But i am just making the point that the legal system (specifically the law enforcement side) does act on anticipated crimes in some instances.

Which crimes do the police act on in prior to the act of that crime?

My post was edited and i was in agreement for it to be so but there was some added context in that '
But to keep it very general, as an example i am aware of law enforcement units acting on threats of "terrorism". Large units and well funded units work on the prevention of an act.
They're not sitting around waiting on the event to occur and then arresting after the event. They're proactively preventing the harmful event based on intent and the entire goal is to get to them prior to act.

And again, and ill quote myself here again
No one is going to die if they dont act on neo nazi's spewing some racist ****, vs a group of terrorists planning to bomb a shopping centre, so it's obviously different. But i am just making the point that the legal system (specifically the law enforcement side) does act on anticipated crimes in some instances.

[T_R]

Im on the fence on this but on that post im not sure that's really true. There are extremely large and well funded teams units within law enforcement that are dedicated to anticipating crime.

No one is going to die if they dont act on neo nazi's spewing some racist ****, vs a group of terrorists planning to bomb a shopping centre, so it's obviously different. But i am just making the point that the legal system (specifically the law enforcement side) does act on anticipated crimes in some instances.

Which crimes do the police act on in prior to the act of that crime?

My post was edited and i was in agreement for it to be so but there was some added context in that '
But to keep it very general, as an example i am aware of law enforcement units acting on threats of "terrorism". Large units and well funded units work on the prevention of an act.
They're not sitting around waiting on the event to occur and then arresting after the event. They're proactively preventing the harmful event based on intent and the entire goal is to get to them prior to act.

And again, and ill quote myself here again
No one is going to die if they dont act on neo nazi's spewing some racist ****, vs a group of terrorists planning to bomb a shopping centre, so it's obviously different. But i am just making the point that the legal system (specifically the law enforcement side) does act on anticipated crimes in some instances.

Arresting someone under 101.6 of the Criminal Code (Planning / Preparation of a terrorist event) (NSW...don't know the other states and can't get motivated to look) isn't acting to prevent a crime, it's arresting someone for committing a crime.

[Botman]

Im not particularly motivated to look at lot at a bunch a **** racists being dealt with either
but my first google search suggested new laws that put the nazi salute and symbol in assosiation with terror groups, so perhaps they were handled correctly according to the current law... and if not, they have avenues to address with within the court system if they've been wronged. Im not an expert in law by any means but it seems like they've got it buttoned up, even if im not entirely sure that's the way to go about it.
Frankly id rather de-mask them, name and shame them and honestly spend budget on putting their faces on every newpaper and telecast across the country. Society will take care of these fools.

Australia PM condemns neo-Nazis after arrest of 'disguised' group: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 024-01-27/

[gerg]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

Again, I'm not sure the legal system will satisfy somebody who has just lost a loved one because the police were hanging back to see what happens.

Police pull over vehicles all the time on suspicion and then conduct an investigation. Random breathe tests were introduced to reduce the road toll, that is a form of prevention as charging people after the event (where innocent people were killed by drunken drivers) wasn't satisfactory for the general population.


Edit: let me throw a straw man argument at you. One of your boys blitzes an opponent in rugby, absolutely towelling him up, legally. Said bloke is gang member and turns up with 30 mates banging on your door on a Saturday night. Your private security has knocked off for the weekend, you're O/S with work and your wife is home with the kids. What are you doing? Telling your wife to ride it out, calling the police although no crime has been committed, or calling your underworld connections to sort it out?


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Dr Zaius]

TR keeps implying that these blokes were arrested for a crime they are yet to commit. As best that I can tell, no one has been arrested. They were simply moved on by police as occurs daily to obnoxious people looking likely to cause trouble.

[T_R]

The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point. Firstly, you have no idea if these people are preaching genocide – the media have described them as neo-Nazis, but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know what they are preaching because they have not been able to speak freely.

As for being accosted in a park, once someone ahs threatened my family or I, then there are legal remedies available, as per my first post. The fact that this has not happened means that those remedies can’t be applied – we don’t punish people for things that we think they may do.

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

Again, I'm not sure the legal system will satisfy somebody who has just lost a loved one because the police were hanging back to see what happens.

Police pull over vehicles all the time on suspicion and then conduct an investigation. Random breathe tests were introduced to reduce the road toll, that is a form of prevention as charging people after the event (where innocent people were killed by drunken drivers) wasn't satisfactory for the general population.


Edit: let me throw a straw man argument at you. One of your boys blitzes an opponent in rugby, absolutely towelling him up, legally. Said bloke is gang member and turns up with 30 mates banging on your door on a Saturday night. Your private security has knocked off for the weekend, you're O/S with work and your wife is home with the kids. What are you doing? Telling your wife to ride it out, calling the police although no crime has been committed, or calling your underworld connections to sort it out?


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

If asked to leave, they've committed the crime of trespass. If making specific threats against a specific person, then there are half a dozen offences in the criminal code you could choose from. This is actually my point - if people cross the line and commit an offence, then there are ample remedies in place...not really sure if there's a free speech argument in your post at all.

If, however, they'd like to gather at the public rugby oval and yell that my son tackles too hard...well, that's their right and I would support that. And film it. And put it on youtube. And watch it a LOT.

We also have two family heirloom Tokugawajidai katana in a cupboard near the door, which would make for friggin' hilarious scenes if waved around a bit.

[T_R]

TR keeps implying that these blokes were arrested for a crime they are yet to commit. As best that I can tell, no one has been arrested. They were simply moved on by police as occurs daily to obnoxious people looking likely to cause trouble.

Very true. It was a question regarding free speech I was responding to, however.

[gerg]

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

Again, I'm not sure the legal system will satisfy somebody who has just lost a loved one because the police were hanging back to see what happens.

Police pull over vehicles all the time on suspicion and then conduct an investigation. Random breathe tests were introduced to reduce the road toll, that is a form of prevention as charging people after the event (where innocent people were killed by drunken drivers) wasn't satisfactory for the general population.


Edit: let me throw a straw man argument at you. One of your boys blitzes an opponent in rugby, absolutely towelling him up, legally. Said bloke is gang member and turns up with 30 mates banging on your door on a Saturday night. Your private security has knocked off for the weekend, you're O/S with work and your wife is home with the kids. What are you doing? Telling your wife to ride it out, calling the police although no crime has been committed, or calling your underworld connections to sort it out?


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

If asked to leave, they've committed the crime of trespass. If making specific threats against a specific person, then there are half a dozen offences in the criminal code you could choose from. This is actually my point - if people cross the line and commit an offence, then there are ample remedies in place...not really sure if there's a free speech argument in your post at all.

If, however, they'd like to gather at the public rugby oval and yell that my son tackles too hard...well, that's their right and I would support that. And film it. And put it on youtube. And watch it a LOT.

We also have two family heirloom Tokugawajidai katana in a cupboard near the door, which would make for friggin' hilarious scenes if waved around a bit.

If anything bad were to happen the legal process and penalties imposed isn't going to help heal your grieving. Especially when they're released from prison in 7 years.

Man, the off-season just gets worse and worse every year. And still another month.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[T_R]

Please T_R attend the next Nazi rally and employ those tactics. Make sure you live stream it and post a link for us. Save your wife the hassle of smothering you in your sleep.

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

Again, I'm not sure the legal system will satisfy somebody who has just lost a loved one because the police were hanging back to see what happens.

Police pull over vehicles all the time on suspicion and then conduct an investigation. Random breathe tests were introduced to reduce the road toll, that is a form of prevention as charging people after the event (where innocent people were killed by drunken drivers) wasn't satisfactory for the general population.


Edit: let me throw a straw man argument at you. One of your boys blitzes an opponent in rugby, absolutely towelling him up, legally. Said bloke is gang member and turns up with 30 mates banging on your door on a Saturday night. Your private security has knocked off for the weekend, you're O/S with work and your wife is home with the kids. What are you doing? Telling your wife to ride it out, calling the police although no crime has been committed, or calling your underworld connections to sort it out?


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

If asked to leave, they've committed the crime of trespass. If making specific threats against a specific person, then there are half a dozen offences in the criminal code you could choose from. This is actually my point - if people cross the line and commit an offence, then there are ample remedies in place...not really sure if there's a free speech argument in your post at all.

If, however, they'd like to gather at the public rugby oval and yell that my son tackles too hard...well, that's their right and I would support that. And film it. And put it on youtube. And watch it a LOT.

We also have two family heirloom Tokugawajidai katana in a cupboard near the door, which would make for friggin' hilarious scenes if waved around a bit.

If anything bad were to happen the legal process and penalties imposed isn't going to help heal your grieving. Especially when they're released from prison in 7 years.

Man, the off-season just gets worse and worse every year. And still another month.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

And if people are going to show up at my house to hand out a beating, I don't think limiting their rights to free speech is going to help much, either.

But yes, this conversation has jumped the shark.

[gangrenous]

And ISIS beheadings are illegal, you probably realise. Not really a free speech issue.

Ah the old T_R create silly straw men and ridicule strategy.

P.S. your story is wonderful. But it’s fantasy to think laughing at a neo Nazi group isn’t a high risk occupation.

Ive really really tried to find any conceivable 'strawman' in this post, but it continues to elude me.

This line is the worst of it. “Beheadings are illegal and as such are legally controlled and so can’t be related to an argument about free speech”.

There were very clear arguments put forward about how people saw extreme speech as a stepping stone to illegal acts. That there is very good reason for the state to intervene before the strictly illegal acts occur because:
a) By that point you already have a victim. It could have been prevented.
b) It is not reasonable for all people to defend themselves by show of ridicule, show of force, or legal retribution. Your comfort with these is not shared by everyone.

[gangrenous]

And if people are going to show up at my house to hand out a beating, I don't think limiting their rights to free speech is going to help much, either.

Similar here. Why would people show up at your house if they were dispersed by police?

They show up because of your approach to leave it up to the regular joes to call them out and they seek retribution. The free speech limitation is preventative of this event.

[gerg]

Again, you're confusing free speech and assault. Our legal system does not - or should not - anticipate crimes. Im surprised how conservative the views are from some people here.

Again, I'm not sure the legal system will satisfy somebody who has just lost a loved one because the police were hanging back to see what happens.

Police pull over vehicles all the time on suspicion and then conduct an investigation. Random breathe tests were introduced to reduce the road toll, that is a form of prevention as charging people after the event (where innocent people were killed by drunken drivers) wasn't satisfactory for the general population.


Edit: let me throw a straw man argument at you. One of your boys blitzes an opponent in rugby, absolutely towelling him up, legally. Said bloke is gang member and turns up with 30 mates banging on your door on a Saturday night. Your private security has knocked off for the weekend, you're O/S with work and your wife is home with the kids. What are you doing? Telling your wife to ride it out, calling the police although no crime has been committed, or calling your underworld connections to sort it out?


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

If asked to leave, they've committed the crime of trespass. If making specific threats against a specific person, then there are half a dozen offences in the criminal code you could choose from. This is actually my point - if people cross the line and commit an offence, then there are ample remedies in place...not really sure if there's a free speech argument in your post at all.

If, however, they'd like to gather at the public rugby oval and yell that my son tackles too hard...well, that's their right and I would support that. And film it. And put it on youtube. And watch it a LOT.

We also have two family heirloom Tokugawajidai katana in a cupboard near the door, which would make for friggin' hilarious scenes if waved around a bit.

If anything bad were to happen the legal process and penalties imposed isn't going to help heal your grieving. Especially when they're released from prison in 7 years.

Man, the off-season just gets worse and worse every year. And still another month.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

And if people are going to show up at my house to hand out a beating, I don't think limiting their rights to free speech is going to help much, either.

But yes, this conversation has jumped the shark.

My point all along has been about police controlling or preventing crimes, not specifically free speech, but below I have tried to draw parallels. Free speech is an American thing. So many Australians think we have the same free speech laws as America does but AFAIK we don't.

But it kind of is a similar point to the one I am making. Even in America with their freedom of speech - like a few have said - there's consequences. Go into a ghetto area and see how far your freedom of speech gets you. **** around and find out that your speech gets you a solid beating. You may be in the right to say whatever you want as far as the law goes, and they may be in the wrong for beating you to a pulp. Does who is right and who is wrong matter to you when you're eating dinner through a straw for 3 months?

Similarly if someone kills my family because the police didn't act upon a group of potentially violent intruders, what the hell do I care about their right to congregate peacefully while preparing to murder my family, on the nature strip in front of my house.

Most people/criminals dont swing by the police station before committing a crime - to forewarn the police, until there is mental illness. A squad car driving past a group of thugs isn't going to witness any crime and they're not breaking any law. The squad could just drive on but generally they have an intuition that a crime is going to be committed.

The legal proceedings they face are meaningless for me after the event.


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[gerg]

Gangers beat me to it. Trying to post and cook brunch takes time.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Off]

**** what an absolute circus. Absolute tiddly wink ****.

Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk

[Dr Zaius]

Finished ep 1 of Nemesis last night, this line from Beetota sums it up pretty well.

Keen to do their best to show why their weaselling was justified, and everyone else's wasn't.

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

It's Game of Thrones esque. Scomo is definitely the top weasel, and managed to out weasel everyone else. You can't trust a word he says in that interview.