They sent him to PRISON for 1 year...for speech!
Once the state starts policing words, don’t be surprised when it begins auditing your thoughts...
My thoughts in 5 dot points:
The Danger of Overreach - His jail sentence signals a shift from policing actions to auditing thoughts and words.
Selective Enforcement - Why one man is jailed while politicians and other activists using similar rhetoric remain free.
Subjectivity as a Weapon - “Hate speech” is defined by shifting “vibes” rather than clear laws, making it easy to weaponise against any dissenting opinion.
Criticism Over Incarceration - In a free society, “ugly” or “moronic” speech should be met with public debate, not a prison cell.
The jailing of Brandan Koschel for mouthing off in a 40 second speech at a rally is being hailed as a triumph of virtue. In reality, it’s Exhibit A in the case for scrapping hate speech laws altogether.
Because once the state starts policing words don’t be surprised when it begins auditing your thoughts.
Brandan has been sentenced to a year in prison for declaring to a Sydney crowd that Jews are “the greatest enemy.” It was ugly, the sort of thing usually confined to the darker corners of the internet. Was it distasteful? Sure.
Should it be illegal? That’s a far more dangerous question.
If Brandan goes to jail for declaring Jews the enemy, then consistency demands we start measuring everyone else’s rhetorical excesses with the same ruler. Does Pauline Hanson get a cell for suggesting there are no good Muslims? Do I start packing a toothbrush for suggesting Islam has ideological problems? Should half of social media be marched off in cuffs before lunchtime?
You cannot empower the state to jail people for “hate” and then act shocked when the definition of hate turns out to be elastic, political, and exquisitely selective.
And here is the line that matters, in a free society people must be allowed to speak, even crudely, even offensively, so long as they are not calling for direct violence. The moment speech becomes a criminal offence simply because it is unpleasant or unpopular, freedom becomes a privilege granted by government rather than a right possessed by citizens.
Hate speech law isn’t a scalpel it’s a vibe. What counts as “harm”? Who decides? Today it’s an individual shouting nonsense into a microphone, tomorrow it’s someone questioning gender ideology or climate science.
And what about Grace Tame leading chants of “From Gadigal to Gaza, globalise the intifada”?
Or Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi declaring, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”?
Why are they free to walk around while Brandan is not?
This isn’t a defence of Brandan he sounds like a fool. But in a free society fools are not sent to prison. We should let foolish people say foolish things, and then criticise them mercilessly.
The real danger isn’t that a moron said something moronic, it’s that the state now claims the authority to decide which morons are permissible and which are prosecutable.
Once you hand the government power to criminalise speech, don’t be surprised when the category of “criminal speech” expands with remarkable creativity.
Democracy requires free speech, especially the kind that makes you uncomfortable. If you won’t defend that principle now, don’t be shocked when the law turns on you later.
These hate speech laws must all be repealed.
Senator Ralph Babet, Senator for Victoria, United Australia Party.
Edit: It has also been brought to my attention that a pedophile in Melbourne who was in possession of videos of children as young as 10 being violently raped was given a 3 months prison sentence. Make it make sense. You can’t. Read that article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15571813/Outrage-weak-sentence-school-principal-paedophile-sick-messages-exposed.html
Spot on senator. Just an idea would it be poosible to introduce a 1 page bill to the senate simply saying all speech shall remain free, apart from direct calls for violence, or speech intended to put someone in danger (telling a blind person the roads clear when it's not).
At least then every single senator will be forced to say on the record if speech should be free or policed
I don't agree with the Jews being called a 'race' at all. They say they are semitic, but actually most of them have Eastern Caucasian ethnicity, and generally speaking they are a very 'mixed bag. Judaism is a religion, and Brandan correctly identified that IF the members of any group, be it a race or a religion, are put above everyone else and 'special' consideration is given to them - they WILL grow into a monster that threatens everyone else's rights. It doesn't matter which group it is, it is a simple matter of human psychology. Try doing it with your kids - make one the favourite who can do no wrong - and see how that turns out. The current Israeli regime has become the 'spoiled child that can do no wrong' - and it has, predictably, become a monster on the World stage. Brandan should have known that this particular group has this protected 'special' status and that no political analysis of their country's deplorable behaviour is currently permitted. Those of us who still have some brain cells functioning hope that history will correct this blind spot in time (sooner rather than later before all the Palestinians, Syrians, Yemenis and Iranians have been wiped out) and we will look back on it as a dark period just as we look back on other dark periods that took place in recent times. One thing is certain, the World cannot continue on its current path without destroying what is left of Western Civilisation as well as most of the Middle East, so let's hope that some sanity prevails very soon.