News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[Perth Red]

No. My definition is not getting the government involved in enforcing it. You know, with the laws that Israel could be prosecuted under?

Do you believe in freedom of movement as well? Maybe we shouldn't have trespass laws?
You cant go around being abusive, offensive or slandering people. Its not what is acceptable in a civilised society. Could you imagine a place where everyone was free to say whatever they liked with no potential legal consequence? We have had slander laws for a very long time, do you consider these an impingement on the right to freedom of speech?

 

[Perth Red]

Is this the first time you and I have agreed on this forum?

Quite possibly lol. Mark the day in the diary!

 

[Last Week]

Ok. So you can. It'll just make people shitty at you.

I don't have a problem with that fwiw. Just, you know, actually say what you mean.

Yes, shitty to the point that you get sacked from a multi million dollar contract. That's how strong society's stance is.

Why does anyone have an issue with this?

 

[age.s]

Incredibly, this is precisely what you've done throughout this discussion. Projection is a wonderful thing.

That's not really a definition, but that aside, no government is enforcing anything?

You seem to have made up some imagined "state action" in the last few pages when nobody has said anything about Folau being criminally or civilly punished for his posts. I can't see anywhere in this thread where anybody who is arguing with you has supported this.

The only time legal enforcement popped up in this thread was when you provided a link to an obscure instance that occured overseas and was reported in an alternative newspaper in Canada.

I haven't imagined anything. This started pages back when you and Bazal said you'd never want punitive action taken against Israel because that would be insane (and presumably immoral). The next few pages have been me pointing out that there are laws (specifically hate speech and anti discrimination laws) that could do that and I object to those laws. Presumably you do too given your earlier comments about not wanting the state involved.

Yet I've now had to defend accusation after accusation of being a closet homophobe as well as being told time after time that the ARU is not the government. It's almost as if you're not arguing with my actually point.

 

[age.s]

Yes, shitty to the point that you get sacked from a multi million dollar contract. That's how strong society's stance is.

Why does anyone have an issue with this?

Dunno. You'd have to ask someone who has a problem with him being sacked by the ARU.

 

[Springs09]

M

Society does, we set our rules and laws as a community as what we find offensive or dangerous. They evolve and change over time. I'm sure over the last hundred years plus people have whinged about "PC" lefties not getting the joke, or comedy being killed due to snowflakes or the other BS people come out with to justify and validate their own values and prejudices . Start with "is this harmful or disrespectful to a group of people or an individual" and you'll get your answer most of the time.

Okay so most things said on this forum are hate speech then as they are disrespectful to an individual

 

[Last Week]

Do you believe in freedom of movement as well? Maybe we shouldn't have trespass laws?
You cant go around being abusive, offensive or slandering people. Its not what is acceptable in a civilised society. Could you imagine a place where everyone was free to say whatever they liked with no potential legal consequence? We have had slander laws for a very long time, do you consider these an impingement on the right to freedom of speech?

To support this comment, does anyone think people should be able to say 'I like to f**k children'?

Anyone? Come on. Free speech!!

 

[Last Week]

M


Okay so most things said on this forum are hate speech then as they are disrespectful to an individual

By creed of the football team they play for? No. If it's by gender, race, religious beliefs, sexuality, etc etc, then yes.

Isn't that obvious?

 

[Last Week]

Dunno. You'd have to ask someone who has a problem with him being sacked by the ARU.

Hang on, haven't you been championing 'free speech' for the last few pages?

 

[Timmah]

I haven't imagined anything. This started pages back when you and Bazal said you'd never want punitive action taken against Israel because that would be insane (and presumably immoral). The next few pages have been me pointing out that there are laws (specifically hate speech and anti discrimination laws) that could do that and I object to those laws. Presumably you do too given your earlier comments about not wanting the state involved.

Yet I've now had to defend accusation after accusation of being a closet homophobe as well as being told time after time that the ARU is not the government. It's almost as if you're not arguing with my actually point.

So it keeps coming back to you wanting to apparently repeal discrimination laws. I don't understand why the ability to discriminate is important to you and why you don't think there should be consequences.

In this instance, I don't believe that legal action against Folau is necessary but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be subject to legal action should discrimination inflict significant damages on them.

I would like to understand why you don't think there should be laws against discrimination and hate speech.

 

[OzDragon]

By creed of the football team they play for? No. If it's by gender, race, religious beliefs, sexuality, etc etc, then yes.

Isn't that obvious?

Most of us are quite inconsiderate to the feelings of the mentally handicapped.

But it's just so fun to mess with souffs.

 

[Springs09]

I don't think people have much problem with people believing in imaginary things or books per se. It's when they take those beliefs and use them to be bigoted or offensive, or in some cases violent, to others that people then have an issue with religion and those who act on it.

You must not have been on the internet long if you think people don’t have problems with believing in imaginary things.

 

[Perth Red]

M


Okay so most things said on this forum are hate speech then as they are disrespectful to an individual

I wouldn't say most but arguably some yes, hence why there is the opportunity to report posts that you find offensive. Now individually we all have our own tolerance level for such abuse, some might get very upset, some might brush it off as the rants of an idiot. I usually find the ignore button works for someone who is consistently posting inappropriately.

 

[Perth Red]

You must not have been on the internet long if you think people don’t have problems with believing in imaginary things.

Most of that intolerance of religious beliefs comes from the intolerance of the religious beliefs. There's plenty of great stuff in religious tomes about looking out for each other, caring for those less fortunate etc but there is also a lot of fruit loop offensive, repressive and intolerant stuff and that's what gets peoples backs up. Throw in the hypocrisy of the people who claim to live by these words and would dare to tell others how they should live their lives and that's where the dislike comes from. Take Folau, I noticed he didnt include in his list of sinners heading down the 'way to hell people with tattoos or who eat bacon, despite it being clear in the bible. I wonder why?

I cant say I see much online hatred aimed at Buddhists!

 

[age.s]

Do you believe in freedom of movement as well? Maybe we shouldn't have trespass laws?

No. Property rights are a core pillar of a civilised society.

Freedom to move across borders is a different matter.

You cant go around being abusive, offensive or slandering people. Its not what is acceptable in a civilised society. Could you imagine a place where everyone was free to say whatever they liked with no potential legal consequence? We have had slander laws for a very long time, do you consider these an impingement on the right to freedom of speech?

You should be free to associate with anyone you wish. The ARU should be free to associate with anyone they wish. Israel has already lost his job. Without some sort of contrition his future prospects look pretty bleak. He should be free to go around being offensive if he's willing to end up a hermit somewhere subsisting on whatever he can scrounge from his surroundings.

Broadly against slander laws, though I can see an argument that they're fraud and people should be protected from fraud. They're very different to what Izzy's doing though.

 

[age.s]

Hang on, haven't you been championing 'free speech' for the last few pages?

That's hilarious.

You really don't understand free speech do you.

 

[age.s]

I would like to understand why you don't think there should be laws against discrimination and hate speech.

Freedom of association acts as sufficient regulation. Further action is punitive and puts too much power in the hands of the state.

 

[Last Week]

That's hilarious.

You really don't understand free speech do you.

Yawn. You're just going around in circles now. Doubling down again?

Good luck. You've been absolutely pummelled in this argument and the next round will be just the same.

 

[President Trump]

This is just disrespectful of Folau's Tongan culture. He could of course remedy the situation by saying that he's switched (religious) codes to Islam and censor you all on the grounds of Islamophobia.

He'll probably sign with a Japanese team and get a payrise out of it anyway.

 

[Perth Red]

Freedom of association acts as sufficient regulation. Further action is punitive and puts too much power in the hands of the state.

Its an interesting opinion, not shared by the majority of society I suspect. As with all things there are levels of consequence and the hate speech laws are for the extreme levels that could injure or lead to lnjury of people. Most of us have no problem that we have laws for such extremeism. Folau wont be charged because what he said was unpleasant, offensive and not societally acceptable, but he wasnt calling for the decapitation of gays in the street, which probably would have led to him being charged.