First, I must make clear I (and the vast majority of fellow Australians) detest Nazi’s and Communists.
That said, the following video explains how that disgust can be twisted into laws that erode our rights. It’s a bit long (45 minutes) but a detailed explanation of an attempt to do just that:
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
I wasn’t aware that Australians had free speech. Do you have a kind of Bill of Rights that recognizes such a thing?
Not strictly speaking. We really only have one right - the right to democracy. The rest (as explained in the video) are implied rights that follow from being a democracy (and upheld by the equivalent of your Supreme Court, our High Court), so they have the same status as if they were in the Constitution.
In practice, it usually makes no difference, but the video explains some subtle differences and a rather tricky strategy to perhaps circumvent them; e.g., if, on the advice of our intelligence organisation, ASIO, you are designated a terrorist organisation, those rights can be curtailed. For example, the right to free expression has been curtailed in so far as being able to give a Nazi salute (not that it worries the vast majority) is outlawed. I personally like that one as I detest Nazi’s, but that is not the point.
As Ayn Rand says, in relation to pornography:
‘I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called “hard-core” pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting. I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies in that category, and I never intend to. The descriptions in legal cases, along with the “modern” touches in “soft-core” productions, are sufficient grounds to form an opinion. The reason for my opinion is the opposite of the usual one: I do not regard sex as evil; I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display. But the issue here is not one’s view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it. It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with suppressing the least attractive practitioners of a given right. In this case, the offenders’ disgusting nature makes them a good test of one’s loyalty to a principle.’ (some minor editing done by Grammarly because I did not switch it off).
In other words, there is a more important principle involved, as expressed by Evelyn Hall:
“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
That is the worry about some of the so-called hate laws being enacted in Australia. Because our implied rights depend on our democratic rights (the right to vote, one person, one vote, etc.), legal arguments can be made that some of those ‘implied rights’ may interfere with those democratic rights.
Note the writers of our constitution were well aware of this, but considered it a bettter option than a bill of rights; likely because of our culture of a fair go and mateship the ‘prime’ right was that everyone has an equal say in electing our government. Of course, we can change that through what is called a referendum, but like becoming a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy (which went to a referendum, but failed), most think in practice it would make little or no difference. The above video casts some odubt on that view.