reSee.it - Related Video Feed

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. Legislators have a responsibility to restrict freedoms if someone's views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort.

The laws were changed after wide consultation to balance free speech with protection from serious harm. The laws address deliberate misinformation and disinformation, and are not intended to police opinions. A high bar of serious harm must be met. ACMA, not the government, will decide whether to take action.

A huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like. Why do they believe that? Yeah. Probably. But what it really is Is twelve and then sixteen years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that who say exactly what the attorney general just said well there's free speech which of course we all acknowledge is important so so important. But then there's this thing called hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way. They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence. Any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them. That's got to be the red line.

The speaker acknowledges that their country doesn't have the same freedom of speech laws as the United States. This is because their government prioritizes maintaining a multicultural community where people can live peacefully, free from vilification and hatred seen elsewhere.

The speaker congratulates Australians for rejecting the voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement. They argue that welcome to country ceremonies and acknowledgments of country perpetuate racial division and deny citizenship and sovereignty to all Australians. They criticize the rituals as culturally wrong, disrespectful, and patronizing. The speaker calls for an end to these practices, stating that they have lost their meaning and only serve as virtue signaling. They urge unity and respect for Aboriginal culture, emphasizing that Australians want to move forward together as one nation.

This could be one of the last clips by the White Rabbit podcast and me, Nicola Charles, if Australia passes its legislation on online misinformation and disinformation. It's concerning that Australia is following the footsteps of China, North Korea, and Nazi Germany by restricting satire, comedy, and challenging government decisions. Speaking out against government mandates online is a form of peaceful protest, but this will no longer be allowed if the legislation passes. Online dissent and voices like mine will disappear.

Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech, and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime. That's a lie, and it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about. And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them. There are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under The US code who disagree with their beliefs. Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That's got to be the red line.

Australia recently passed a sweeping hate speech law with minimal debate, sparking widespread concerns about free speech. The law's justification centers on combating antisemitism, despite a lack of concrete evidence linking alleged attacks to perpetrators or clear motives. Critics argue the law is overly broad, potentially criminalizing religious teachings and silencing dissent. The shift from requiring intent to incite violence to merely being "reckless" raises serious concerns about potential misuse and arbitrary enforcement. The law carries mandatory jail sentences, even for unintentional breaches. This rapid passage and its implications for free speech are alarming, and similar legislation based on the IHRA definition of antisemitism is being considered globally, raising concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights in other countries, including the US. We urge you to pay attention to this pattern of events.

Our incitement hatred legislation needs to be updated for the social media age. It's not just the platforms that are responsible, but also the individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We need new laws to hold them accountable.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. If your views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort, it is our duty as legislators to restrict those freedoms.

Bill C-63 in the speaker's country may allow individuals to be reported to a magistrate based on someone's fear of a potential hate speech event in the coming year, potentially leading to a year of house arrest with electronic monitoring. A similar bill was recently defeated in Ireland, and people in the UK are allegedly being persecuted for expressing offensive opinions. The speaker asserts that free speech that offends no one is pointless and requires no defense. According to the speaker, the United States has the most thoroughly enshrined and deeply entrenched protections for free speech on Earth, and they believe this right should not be taken for granted.

- Under Victoria's civil anti vilification scheme, starts in 2026, the speaker of a vilifying statement generally needs to be identifiable to be held to a to to be held accountable. We recognize that this could protect cowards who hide behind anonymous profiles to spread hate and stoke fear. That's why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and anonymous users to account and will, as point, a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.

I defend free speech and oppose the introduction of thoughtcrime laws. Monitoring citizens' thoughts is not the job of elected officials. Intent should not be criminalized, as it's impossible to regulate thoughts. While I support punishing bigoted actions, restricting speech is not the role of local government. This has led to oppression in Europe. Let's not forget the importance of free speech and the dangers of limiting it.

The transcript argues that hate speech laws are expanding globally and criticizes Australia’s proposed Combating Antisemitism, Hate, and Extremism Bill 2026 as exceptionally tyrannical. The speaker notes that after the Bondi terrorist attack, proposals to ban protests and ordinary Australians’ speech emerged, and claims that some groups will explicitly be unprotected, including Catholics and Christians. The report highlights how the bill defines public place so broadly as to include the Internet (posts, videos, tweets, memes, blogs) and states it is irrelevant whether hatred actually occurs or whether anyone felt fear. It asserts that speech is not a crime, yet the bill would criminalize speech that merely causes fear, with penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. Key provisions highlighted include: - Prohibited speech can be punished even if no actual harm occurs. - A person is guilty of displaying a prohibited symbol unless they prove a religious, academic, or journalistic exemption; however, Christianity is not claimed to be protected. - The AFP minister can declare prohibited groups without procedural fairness, including relying on retroactive conduct, potentially punishing actions that occurred before the law existed. - The scope could extend to actions outside Australia, with penalties including up to seven years in prison for membership in a prohibited group and up to fifteen years for supporting, training, recruiting, or funding a banned group. - Although the bill claims religious protections, the joint committee hearing indicates that protections would be afforded to Jewish and Sikh Australians, but not to Catholics and, by extension, Christian Australians. A discussion between Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 suggests that while clearly protected categories may include Jews and Sikhs, being Catholic alone would not meet the protected criteria, though certain circumstances might bring some Catholics into protection if they form part of broader protected groups. The speakers argue that the legislation effectively excludes Christianity, the world’s largest religion and a religion emphasizing love, forgiveness, and praying for enemies. They reference prior parallels in Canada, where efforts to criminalize hate speech allegedly led to passages of the Bible being criminalized. They claim that, in practice, hate speech laws protect every other group while narrowing or excluding Christianity, and they suggest this pattern reflects a broader effort to suppress Christian voices in the West. The discussion touches on how the law could enable retroactive punishment, asking whether authorities might use AI to review old social media posts for politically unacceptable content from many years prior. It also references concerns about enforcement bias, suggesting that hate speech laws are enforced by those who tolerate violent zealots while suppressing peaceful religious expression. The speakers advocate for protecting freedom of religion and ensuring that protections apply to all beliefs, warning that if one religion is not protected, none are. They also cite remarks from US figures like Sarah B. Rogers suggesting that the issue is not simply to replicate European or UK approaches, but to maintain balanced protections while addressing concerns about restricting religious speech.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. If your views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort, it is our duty as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.

Should the Judiciary Committee be concerned if European law results in the censorship of Americans? Absolutely, especially after recent events. I shared information this morning on X about a judicial ruling in Europe asserting their right to censor. We're seeing similar trends in Australia, where authorities believe they should censor the entire global Internet of disfavored information. This is very disturbing and really makes you question our alliance with Europe.

Our incitement hatred legislation needs to be updated for the social media age. It's not just the platforms that are responsible, but also the individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We need new laws to go after them individually.

The speakers discuss what they describe as a global rise in Islamist-linked threats and the impact of migration on security in Western countries. They begin by asserting that France’s government can no longer keep its own people safe from “potential radical Islamic terrorists that they have welcomed into their country,” and claim that France has allowed so many Middle East and North African migrants that crowds can no longer be assembled. They extend the concern to other Western nations, stating that the threat is now widespread, including in Germany, where they say many people are afraid to attend famous Christmas markets because they have become highly dangerous targets for radical Islamists. Speaker 1 provides details: since 2014, seven European Christmas markets have been attacked—three in France and four in Germany. Authorities arrested five men suspected of planning attack number eight in Germany last week; among them is described as a Muslim cleric from a German mosque who allegedly urged his followers to kill as many people as possible. The report notes that an attack in Poland on a Christmas market was foiled as well. The German case is characterized as a migrant who came from Egypt, moved to Germany, and, according to the speakers, worked at a mosque in a country they describe as tolerantly allowing him to operate there. They claim this individual began indoctrinating other Muslims to murder Christians. They describe attending a German Christmas market at this point as akin to playing Russian roulette, expressing fear that an asylum seeker living on tax dollars could drive a car into a market and kill many people. The speakers reference Australia, stating that 16 people were murdered on a beach “this past Sunday,” and claim that there is a heightened threat as their government imported tens of thousands of migrants from Muslim-majority countries, with the Muslim population purportedly doubling in a decade. They criticize Australia’s Labour Party as “left-wing,” asserting it has “the strictest gun laws in the world” yet intends to add more, while instructing viewers to light a candle as a symbolic response. They describe the current government as being led by people who are detached from reality and who prioritize political orthodoxies over people’s lives, claiming that the media feeds the same narratives and spin. Speaker 2 endorses a symbolic action: “Light a candle. Put it in their front window tonight at 06:47PM to show that light will indeed defeat darkness.” They state that a national cabinet meeting will consider a proposal to empower agencies to examine what can be done in this area. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes a narrative of increasing Islamist terrorism linked to migrant populations in Europe and Australia, argues for stronger security measures and altered political responses, and frames mainstream reporting as insufficient.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. Legislators have a responsibility to restrict freedoms if someone's views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort.

Jonathan (Speaker 0) and Michael (Speaker 2) along with Jonathan Conricus (Speaker 1) discuss the Australia Hanukkah attack, antisemitism, and the political context surrounding Palestinian statehood and Islamist extremism. They also touch on free speech, protests, and potential international implications. - Jonathan’s initial reaction to the Australian shooting: He was not surprised, framing it as part of a broader pattern he terms “globalize the Intifada.” He cites experiences in Australia, including Bondi Beach visits and conversations with the Jewish community, who he says feel betrayed by legislators and exposed by law enforcement. He argues the atmosphere in Australia has allowed antisemitic attacks, with radicals allowed to shout antisemitic slogans and attack synagogues. He accuses the Australian government of being weak and cowed, quick to side with Hamas and Palestinians while demonizing Israel, and contends this climate enabled violence against 2,000 Australian Jews celebrating Hanukkah. He calls for full support and protection for Jews in Australia and for leadership to change its stance toward global affairs. - Netanyahu connection and limiting principle: Michael notes Netanyahu’s August letter to Australian Prime Minister Albanese warning that support for a Palestinian state fuels antisemitic violence and benefits Hamas. Conricus is asked about a limiting principle: could endorsing Palestinian statehood by various figures (Ehud Barak, the UN Security Council’s Oslo-era blueprint, etc.) be linked to such attacks, potentially implicating many figures including Donald Trump? Conricus responds that the situation in Australia goes beyond a mere recognition of a Palestinian state and highlights the disquiet in Israel across political spectrum about linking Israel’s actions to global support for Palestinian statehood, especially after October 7 atrocities. - Protests and incitement: Jonathan argues the protests in Australia, including chants like “gas the Jews,” reflect incitement and a broader systemic failure by authorities who allowed Hamas supporters to dominate public spaces and harass Jews. He recounts encounters with Hamas supporters in Melbourne and claims police and local government enabled harassment against Jews, including demands Jews remove kippahs to avoid incitement. He says hate crimes against synagogues have gone unsolved and that this atmosphere of violence and antisemitism needs to change. - Pro-Palestinian vs pro-Hamas distinction: Michael asks where to draw the line between pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protesters. Conricus argues the distinction is artificial and notes that polls show Hamas is the most popular Palestinian political group, suggesting that many demonstrators imply support for Hamas even if they do not explicitly say so. He believes the dominant sentiment among protesters on October 7-8 was supportive of Hamas, even if framed as pro-Palestinian nationalism. He also mentions paid protesters, particularly in US/UK campus contexts, but emphasizes ideologically driven protesters. - Free speech and incitement: Michael insists that if protests include chants and actions that incite violence, this becomes a free-speech issue, citing First Amendment protections in the US and contrasting with other countries. Jonathan counters that incitement can justify restriction when it explicitly calls for violence against a protected group, noting that “gas the Jews” crosses lines beyond free speech, and criticizes Australian authorities’ tolerance of violent incitement. - Chronology and retaliation: The participants discuss the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent response. Jonathan clarifies that Hamas conducted an unprecedented, unprovoked attack killing 1,200 Israelis, with later identification of missing and abducted individuals. He describes Israel’s border closure and subsequent major offensive in Gaza. Michael points out debates around whether attackers’ motives included broader geopolitical narratives, while Jonathan underscores the gravity and scale of the October 7 killings and the need to acknowledge the initial atrocity. - Islam and Western integration: Jonathan addresses Islam as a monotheistic faith with nearly 2 billion followers, expressing no issue with Islam as a religion but concern about Islamist ideology and an imperialistic mindset. He cites Sweden’s immigration policy as an example of perceived societal strain and argues for cautions about cultural integration, border policies, and governance standards in Western societies. - Acknowledgment of individual bravery: They remark on Ahmed Ben Ahmed, a Muslim shop owner who helped defend Jews during the Australian attack, acknowledging his bravery and suggesting he should be recognized for valor. - Iran, Israel, and alleged blame: The discussion covers claims about Iran or Israel behind the attack. Michael asserts there is no evidence linking Mossad or Iran to the attack, while Jonathan suggests Iranian involvement is possible but not proven, noting Iranian propaganda and the potential for blowback, while maintaining that the attackers’ exact affiliations remain unclear. They note Iranian condemnation of the attacks, with skepticism about Iranian statements.

The Irish government's proposed Hate Speech Bill threatens free speech, potentially impacting artistic expression and campaigning on political and civil issues. Possessing certain materials, even without intent to share, could lead to criminal charges. Help oppose this law by visiting www.freespeechireland.ie/takeaction. Translation: The Irish government's proposed Hate Speech Bill could limit free speech, affecting artistic expression and political activism. Possessing certain materials could result in criminal charges. Support the opposition by visiting www.freespeechireland.ie/takeaction.

The Irish government's proposed Hate Speech Bill threatens free speech, potentially impacting artistic expression and campaigning on political and civil issues. Possessing certain materials could lead to criminal charges, even without intent to share them. Help oppose this law by visiting www.freespeechireland.ie/takeaction.

Speaker 0: There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.

A Trump victory signals change, particularly in addressing censorship. Meanwhile, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is pushing a bill that threatens free speech, criminalizing dissent against the government. This authoritarian legislation mirrors previous warnings about the rise of a zero trust model, with measures like mandatory ID linking for social media use. The government is overstepping parental rights, claiming it will care for children instead. Australians must pressure politicians to uphold their rights and reject this bill entirely, rather than seeking amendments. The focus should be on restoring freedoms and ensuring that politicians serve the public, not control it. Support minor parties opposing this bill and advocate for a bill of rights to prevent future authoritarianism. It’s time for Australians to reclaim their country.

Christian hate was not even mentioned in the bill. Just last week, a century old Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Edmonton was burned to the ground. The government's press release mentions anti Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, yet it makes no mention of the rise of hate crimes towards Christians. This bill does not add new protections for worshippers. Instead, it expands state powers by removing the legal safeguards and watering down the definition of hate speech. It even risks criminalizing dissent to what some would call thought crimes. Once such powers are granted to the government, they can be weaponized by any government against its critics. Bill c nine attempts to redefine hatred so vaguely that it risks capturing legitimate debate.