There are two separate issues being blended here: civil liberty concerns, and rhetorical escalation.

It's entirely legitimate to question whether allowing phrases to be banned by regulation creates scope creep. Any power framed broadly deserves scrutiny. That's not paranoia, just constitutional hygiene.

But slippery-slope arguments only hold if we identify the mechanism of the slide. Does the legislation criminalise mere political criticism? Or does it target incitement to violence and serious vilification, which are already restricted under Australian law in every state?

Australia has never operated under a US-style absolutist free speech model. Courts recognise an implied freedom of political communication, but it's not unlimited. Laws are tested for proportionality and compatibility with that freedom. Police don't determine guilt. Courts do.

So the real question isn't whether "hate speech" is distasteful or whether Iran and Russia are worse. The question is much narrower:

- What is the legal threshold in this bill?
- How is it defined?
- What safeguards exist against arbitrary enforcement?
- Is there judicial oversight?

If the law merely reinforces existing incitement standards, calling it authoritarian overreach is hyperbole. If it meaningfully expands criminal liability into ordinary political speech, that's where serious objection lies.

Precision matters more than slogans, whichever side they come from.

Hi JD,

My concern is control by regulation/decree, which in the wrong hands is extremely dangerous, in my opinion. If one accepts that certain phrases are deemed unacceptable, that's all well and good, but in the wrong hands such authority can be a slipper slope to authoritarianism. If the power is there, then politicians will use it.

Any law that puts a man in gaol FOR A YEAR for saying that the Jewish community was the “greatest enemy to this nation” and to “Western civilisation” is definitionally wrong.

“There is no time in history where the people who were censoring speech were the good guys.” RFK Jr

Paul,

Concern about regulation-by-decree is fair. Delegated legislation always deserves scrutiny because it shifts detail-setting away from full parliamentary debate.

But two points matter:

1. Regulations are still disallowable by Parliament.
2. Any criminal offence remains subject to judicial interpretation and constitutional challenge.

The power to regulate symbols or phrases doesn't exist in a vacuum. It sits inside a legal framework with review mechanisms. That doesn't eliminate risk, but it's not executive fiat in the Iranian sense either.

The slope only becomes real if:
- the definitions are vague,
- enforcement becomes selective, or
- judicial review is effectively neutered.

Those are concrete concerns. "Politicians will use it" is a prediction. The question is whether safeguards meaningfully constrain them.
_____

mhaze,

That NSW case wasn't someone saying "I dislike Israeli policy."

It was a man publicly declaring an entire religious community the "greatest enemy to this nation and Western civilisation." Historically, language like that is not neutral political critique. It is dehumanising group attribution that has preceded violence in multiple societies.

Australia has never had an unlimited speech doctrine. We criminalise threats, incitement, harassment, defamation, and conspiracy. The line has always existed.

If your position is that all group-based incitement must be legal unless it is an immediate call to physical violence, that's a US First Amendment model. That's a coherent position. But it's not the model Australia has ever adopted.

As for "censors are never the good guys" - history is more complicated than slogans. Laws against inciting racial violence were introduced after very real episodes of extremist mobilisation.

The real debate isn't "censorship good or bad." It's where the threshold sits and whether it is proportionate.

JD,

I'm not sure if suppression is the answer to curbing anti-anything. I would rather keep these things out in the open, where rebuttal is the way to deal with incendiary opinion of extremists. I'd much prefer to have the Neo-Nazis marching in the streets, than plotting in basements.

"Regulations are still disallowable by Parliament."

Yes, but here in Queensland we don't have a second house of review, so the parliamentary control is in the hands of the executive of the governing party (LNP). Parliament is unlikely to overturn the decisions of the few.

"Any criminal offence remains subject to judicial interpretation and constitutional challenge."

The judiciary can only act as the law allows, our last defence is the Constitution and the High Court.

Trumpster,

We seem to be somewhat on the same side on this, strange!

Paul,

The "keep it in the open" argument has weight. Liberal societies do tend to prefer exposure and rebuttal over suppression.

But two distinctions matter.

First: rebuttal works when speech remains opinion. It works far less well when speech shifts into organised targeting of a defined group. History isn't short on examples where "let them march" didn't defuse radicalisation but helped normalise it.

Second: banning incitement is not the same as banning unpopular ideas. The threshold matters enormously. There's a real difference between:

- "I oppose Israel's policies."
- "I dislike multiculturalism."
- "Group X is the enemy of the nation."

Only the third begins to move from political disagreement toward collective attribution and potential hostility. That's why line-drawing matters.

Regarding unicameralism, yes, Queensland has no upper house. That's been the case since 1922. But Parliament is not simply the executive. Regulations are disallowable. Courts interpret statutes. The High Court reviews constitutional limits. Those guardrails are imperfect, but they exist.

So the deeper question isn't "free speech or authoritarianism." It's whether rebuttal alone is sufficient when speech crosses into sustained group vilification, or whether narrowly defined prohibitions on incitement are part of preserving civil peace.

I share the instinct to be wary of concentrated power. I just don't think every restriction equals a slide toward tyranny. The drafting, the threshold, and the safeguards are what matter.

That's where the real debate sits.