Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention

By Cindy Harper – Reclaim The Net

Close-up of a serious middle-aged man in a dark suit and light-blue tie against a blurred row of flags

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has openly celebrated his government’s reshaping of speech laws, arguing that restrictions on expression are a necessary part of combating hate.

Speaking with Sky News Australia host Sharri Markson, Minns said he wants “a situation where hate speech is not allowed and illegal in NSW and those who practice it are prosecuted,” adding that the state “does not have the same free speech laws that they have in the United States.”

The Premier repeatedly linked speech regulation to public safety, connecting online discussion and public protest to the Bondi Beach terror attack.

According to Minns, “hate speech, antisemitism” begins with chants at marches, “then it migrates online to a tweet or some kind of post,” leading to property damage and arson, and finally, “then you see this horrible, horrible crime.”

He insisted that authorities “need to attack it at every single level,” a statement that positions censorship as part of the government’s crime prevention strategy.

Minns described the Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Bill 2025 as “absolutely vital” and called for “prosecutions of people” under it.

That sequence of events has become a flashpoint, with civil rights lawyers warning that a law born from misinformation risks turning into a tool for political and social control rather than public protection.

During the interview, Minns bristled at those who have questioned the law’s legitimacy or its impact on open debate.

Minns went further, leaving the door open for expanding the legislation, stating, “I’m going to be judged on outcomes here, and if the law’s not fit for purpose, we’ll look at it again.”

Minns also took personal credit for reshaping what he called “free speech laws” in the state.

By asking the public to “give time” for the new rules to take effect, Minns is effectively telling citizens to get used to narrower speech boundaries. It’s not a pause; it’s a conditioning period.

The longer these powers stay in place, the easier it becomes for “hate” to mean whatever the government needs it to mean at a given moment.

Start the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*