Message from @Broo TulsiGang 2024 π¬π§ πΊπΈ
Discord ID: 482186847313985536
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
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
@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
Words are violence Franti