Hello Graham, there was an item on TV tonight about legislation that
passed the Victorian parliament today.
It seems if you say something about say X people a reasonable X person
could complain to the police and have you prosecuted.
Note, not any reasonable person, but a person from the X group.
So the judge cannot consider what a reasonable person may consider but
only consider what a person of the X group may object to.
The opposition claims that it is a very dangerous piece of legislation.
What might be the legal implications for posters on here ?

The opposition are just as pro-Zionist and against anti-Semitism as anyone Bezza.
Dutton takes his free trips to Israel.
They'd make a song and dance but it's all theatre, (deception) but if they were in charge they'd bring in the exact same laws.

And we, the slaves on the plantation aren't allowed to say anything.
Israel commits an ongoing genocide but if anyone dare say a thing, and offend a Jewish person, then you're going to court and jail to be made an example of, as a warning against anyone else doing the same thing.

I keep telling you our nation is captured and occupied.
The sad part about it is when I say that, you're all brainwashed to think I'm wrong and the one causing trouble.

So much for 18C and being permitted to express your beliefs.
If a Jew is offended then you broke the law, isn't that what this law is?
Anti-semitism isn't to protect Jews, its a weapon to weild against us, so Zionists can do what they want without pushback or interference.

Perhaps you should read the law and its intent before pontificating AC. Your comments are as incorrect as its possible to be.

This has nothing to do with Jews v. Muhammadians or your ability to shout your antisemitism from the rafters. Its about the LGBTQI....XYZ crowd forcing us to pretend that their lifestyle is mainstream.

"It seems if you say something about say X people a reasonable X person
could complain to the police and have you prosecuted."

I think we're safe here, Bezza. We don't have any X people in this group.

But we do have lots of Y people... as in Why the hell did he say that?

I live in QLD mhaze, but how come the first article I found on the matter was this in the Australian Jewish News?
And a photo of the Vic Parliament with a dirty big swastika sprayed on it?

Victoria passes landmark anti-vilification laws
http://www.australianjewishnews.com/victoria-passes-landmark-anti-vilification-laws/
'Jewish bodies have welcomed the initiative against hate speech after "explosion of hatred".'

Mind you the article states the Jewish left support, whilst the Jewish right oppose.

I admit I'm not always thorough in my fact checking mhaze, but I rarely say anything without a basis.

Prof. JOHN MEARSHEIMER - The Israel Lobby
http://www.youtube.com/live/Uj2zbuIBHQg?t=30
- Watch for 3 mins until Australia is mentioned.

The number one threat to free speech is Netanyahu.
The number two threat to free speech is the 'following the path of the Brits and Europeans'

The EU are dictating democracy, anti-populist, anti-nationalist and conduct lawfare against undesirable candidates that deny the people chosen representation, as well as attacks on Musks X platform trying to control the discourse and the Brits will send you to jail for the slightest step out of line on social media.
http://www.youtube.com/live/T4XU9O3vEQA?t=1628

The real question you should be asking here Bezza is this:

'Is the collective West becoming authoritarian?'

Take Russia and the USA for example.
In Russia there's many western journalists on media like Sputnik, but even in the US they'll place sanctions on Russian media.
- Even social media companies like Meta ban RT.
And I'm sure googles search algorithms have bias against Russian media as well, favoring western results and omitting Russian ones, to control the discourse and ensure the majority of people remain uninformed.

- The west is far from being the bastion of freedom it claims to be.

Hi Bezza, I've been negligent and should have replied earlier. The terms and conditions of this website are that you are subject to the laws of Queensland. That doesn't, however, mean that some interstate, or even international, court might decide they have jurisdiction.

These sorts of laws are a threat to everyone everywhere in that they may chill speech, even when it cannot touch the speaker.

Anything said on here is subject to the general law. So if something is an offence in Queensland at a state level, or Australia at a federal level, then there could be repercussions.

Do you all understand what free speech is essentially all about?

It's not about the freedom to say the things everyone agrees with.
It's about about being able to say things which others disagree with.
Things that others might find offensive or distasteful, or that which an authoritarian (Or captured) government might oppose.

(There was historically no law against being offended, now I'm not certain)

It's like this:
'I may not agree with that which others say, but I will fight and defend their right to say it.'

It's the right of one person to say whatever they think, no matter how ridiculous, but includes a right for another person to either agree with them or tell them it's ridiculous.

Thanks Graham. As usual some go off at a tangent from the subject.
If I was charged for instance could a claim be made to a court in Victoria that the Qld computer can be read in Victoria so that's it ?
What if a Victorian offended someone in Victoria ?
This a bit like the Federal government wanting to force Facebook to
remove offensive posts.
I think someone has opened a can of worms !

Everyone seems to have missed the point !
If I write something that offends a member of a group, then in the
consideration of the case the reasonable person factor becomes only
a reasonable person of the same group as the complainant is considered.

You can build many examples of this;
eg I say that Islam is a problem.
A moslem complains and the police charge me under this Victorian law.
The judge used take into account if a reasonable person would object,
under this law it has to be if a reasonable moslem would object.
See the problem ? Apparently some barristers do see the point.

I used that example because of what I have written on this site.
As Graham said as the computer is in Queensland no case could be made.
However someone in Victoria could argue that the offense appeared on
their computer in Victoria.
Anyway it seems to be a nibble at free speech.

I prefer the old laws like 18C.
You can say what you want so long as it's an extension of your true beliefs.
Beyond that we probably shouldn't advocate violence, but instead promote dialogue and compromise over conflict.

I think it's better than everyone holding their tongue for the sake of politically correctly
Speaking honestly at least lets everyone else know where their true thoughts lie.