Home

MAGA attack on Australia’s ‘deeply perverse’ anti-hate speech laws

Andrew GreeneThe Nightly
CommentsComments
A senior Trump administration official has warned Australia’s proposed hate speech legislation could have ‘deeply perverse’ outcomes that let extremists off the hook while penalising legitimate debate.
Camera IconA senior Trump administration official has warned Australia’s proposed hate speech legislation could have ‘deeply perverse’ outcomes that let extremists off the hook while penalising legitimate debate. Credit: The Nightly

A senior Trump administration official has warned Australia’s proposed hate speech legislation could have “deeply perverse” outcomes that let extremists off the hook while penalising legitimate debate.

“A statute that imprisons you for calling to deport jihadist extremists — but provides safe harbor if you *are* a jihadist extremist — would be deeply perverse. Let’s hope this isn’t what Australia intends,” Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers wrote online.

“This could be a clumsy effort to avoid the disgraces seen in Europe+UK, where citizens are jailed for quoting the Bible or even praying silently,” Secretary Rogers said in response to a post by Australian activist Drew Pavlou.

“But the problem with “hate speech” laws — one problem of many — is that they’re enforced by the kinds of people who coddle actual violent zealots, so long as they seem subaltern,” she added.

Earlier Mr Pavlou claimed the Albanese government was introducing a special carve out clause in the hate speech legislation to allow “Muslim extremists to continue preaching hate so long as they can argue that they are directly quoting or referencing the Quran”.

Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers.
Camera IconUnder Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers. Credit: supplied/US Department of State

In a separate post referring to the proposed Australian laws, Rogers said: “Religious freedom is a core value of our administration, but protecting speech *only* if it’s religious, while arresting people for secular rejoinders, may distort the public sphere in ways that even progressive censorship enthusiasts dislike.”

A spokesperson for Attorney-General Michelle Rowland hit back at the comments, saying the laws will “crack down on those who spread hate, division and radicalisation in our community, and build upon the government’s existing hate speech laws”.

“These laws seek to get the balance right, while avoiding unintended consequences – cracking down on hate speech without undermining freedom of speech or religion,” the spokesperson told The Nightly.

“The government is now consulting broadly on the legislation – hearing from the public and working across the Parliament to get this right”.

Earlier this month the Under Secretary also took aim at the Albanese government’s social media ban for under 16s, posting online that “Australia’s ban singles out (mostly) American platforms, but not all American platforms. Bluesky is untouched.”

On another occasion in January, she responded to a post on X criticising Australia’s decision to force search engines to verify users’ ages, by writing: “Farcical to pretend this is tailored to protecting children.”

Ms Rogers, who is one of six undersecretaries that report to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has also continued her attacks on the British Labour government’s plans for a crackdown on AI-generated sexual images on the X platform owned by Elon Musk.

“With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table,” she told GB News in an overnight interview, while referencing plans outlined by the UK Prime Minister to take action against the social media platform.

“I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. This is an issue dear to us, and I think we would certainly want to respond.”

Late last year the US congress also threatened contempt charges against Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant if she failed to testify about online safety laws linked to the under-16 social media ban.

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, chair of House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Ms Inman Grant who also has US citizenship, accusing her of an attempt “to design and implement a global censorship regime”.

His letter said the US Supreme Court had recognised Congress has the power to compel US citizens living overseas to testify, and to be found in contempt of court for failing to comply.

“Those, such as yourself, who enjoy the advantages associated with such citizenship should be willing to shoulder the responsibilities as well, including co-operating with congressional investigations,” Congressman Jordan said.

Get the latest news from thewest.com.au in your inbox.

Sign up for our emails