ok that law is more totalitarian than I thought

like this is really bad

>The amendment also provides that in determining whether an alleged offender has commited the poposed offence of intentionally or recklessley inciting violence, **it is irrelevant whether or not, in response to the alleged offender's public act, any person formed a state of mind or carried out any act of violence**
>for the purposes of the proposed offence a public act includes any form of communication (including speaking, writing, displaying notes, playing of recorded material, broadcasting and communicating through social media and other electonic methods) to the public

@nic reading on a news article about it, I guess from reading it it's only suppose to be for new south wales?

yes, its a NSW law

but NSW laws quickly get passed around everywhere else

@nic loads of countries have those laws. just for race. Like in Beazil

do they have a clause where you can be imprisoned because they think your post was reckless?

because that's what this law has

they can just decide that some guy bashing a gay guy was inspired by your post critising the LGBT and lock you in the slammer for 3 years

Well you can be arrested for posting racist things

It literally explicitly does not say that about imprisoning

@nic The question is whether or not the post is a threat or not

it very explicitly says that it has nothing to do with people acting on your post, only the contents of the post

From what I see it's a law against inciting violence against people using a public platform,

doesn't matter if it's a threat or not, as you can see by public act a), it just needs to be public and "reckless"

all that needs to happen is a gay guy gets punched

and if they can link you to it, they will

and you can't argue against it, because your intent doesn't matter

No it doesn't

Hey Nic you're <:gay:382982146249326612>

@nic Intentionally and recklessly inciting violence
that's the phrasing
it's not
a post that is internationally reckless, or incites violence

recklessly is used as an adjective in reference to the incitement of violence in that sentence

` Intentionally and recklessly`
Intentionally **or** recklessly

ffs gypsy

read da englith

it's worded in such a manner that they can ignore your intent and connect it to any violence or threat towards LGBT people

but it has to be threatening violence
that's the crime
not being reckless

you
don't
have
to
be
the
one
threatening
you
just
need
to
be
connected
to
it
somehow

whether you know the person or not

because it's public

and you're "recklessly" posting against LGBT

Well you better leave this chat room then cus we have illegal emotes

@nic No, because of the part you linked that clearly outlines that it literally cannot be connected to any violence towards LGBT people
It has to be judged entirely on whether or not the message itself is an incitement to violence
not its connection to real violence
as you yourself typed out

it is irrelevant whether or not the alleged did the attack, only the public act

you could literally still say gays are trash

its a law against inciting violence or threatening people online

I think you're misreading the part about whether people act on the threat