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

[stormbati]

I will be praying for all of you. Maybe join me we can sing the Fiji Bati hymn.
Also I don’t think they play Rugby in heaven anymore for their treatment of Israel so we can celebrate that too as Rugby League has been surpressed for far too long and now our time has come.
For no weapon formed againt us shall prosper and every tongue that rises against us in judgement be condemned.

I will be accepting small donations please PM me for details

 

[The Great Dane]

If that opinion is publicly broadcast and sits outside societies and the companies expectations then I would expect that they would and quite rightly so. The way you vote isn’t outside societies expectations of decent behaviour, although one nation is pushing it lol, but being racist, homophobic or sexist certainly is in this day and age,

What about when societies expectations are wrong?

For example, what about 50-60+ years ago when the expectations of societies (broadly speaking) were totally racist, and not only was the idea of equal rights between the races considered offensive, but there was large portions of the population that wouldn't even accept that all the races are the same species.

What happens then under your standard? Anybody who said that the races are/should be equal would be being offensive and would be liable to lose their jobs and have the lives ruined.

I mean under the standards you are proposing a supporter of MLK Jr. would be totally unhireable, and the civil rights movement (and every other civil rights movement that came before and after it) would have been dead in the water before they even begun.

I’m not sure why you find that so hard to understand?

I don't understand why you don't understand that allowing the majority opinion to oppress the minority opinion (which though you might not look at it that way, it is literally what you are proposing) is insane, absolutely insane, but not only insane but dangerous as well.

I mean freedom of speech literally exists to protect offensive speech, that is what it's all about, because not only does non-offensive speech not need protecting, but over and over history has proved that sometimes the offensive ideas and uncomfortable truths turn out be the best ideas, and if we don't have rules protecting expressing those ideas then society as a whole is much worse off for it.

 

[The Great Dane]

They are sacking him for repeated infringements of their code of conduct. And because he is not willing to make any guarantees that he won’t infringe again.

To quote myself-

The contrary conduct of holding an opinion that they don't like...

Just because you rephrase it doesn't change what it is.

Even Folau admitted that he knew his post would offend people. To try to diminish it as just an “opinion” is disingenuous.

Causing offence isn't illegal, and nor should it ever be.

 

[Perth Red]

Societies evolve, 50 years ago you could have said what you liked about CaLD people and not lost your job. Didnt make it right just that societies expectations were different. Society isnt always right, thats why it evolves. No doubt in another hundred years what is and isnt acceptable will be different again. At this moment in time it is not acceptable to be publicly homophobic and if you work for a company with strong inclusivity values then publicly broadcasting against these values as a snr rep of that company will likely get you sacked. Hiding behind a book written 2000 years ago isnt a get out clause

 

[CliffyIsGod]

The contrary conduct of holding an opinion that they don't like...

Just because you rephrase it doesn't change what it is.

That they don't like? Israel signed against it for Christs sake!

 

[SBD82]

To quote myself-


Causing offence isn't illegal, and nor should it ever be.

Again with the deflection to criminal law.

No one is saying that it is illegal.

 

[Perth Red]

The contrary conduct of holding an opinion that they don't like...

Just because you rephrase it doesn't change what it is.

No, publicly broadcasting that opinion in way likely to cause damage to the organisation. He can hold any opinion he likes, just dont tweet it, or if you do expect that there will be consequences.

 

[Captain Apollo]

To quote myself-


Causing offence isn't illegal, and nor should it ever be.

Really? Sections 4 and 4A of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) might beg to differ.

 

[grouch]

What about when societies expectations are wrong?

For example, what about 50-60+ years ago when the expectations of societies (broadly speaking) were totally racist, and not only was the idea of equal rights between the races considered offensive, but there was large portions of the population that wouldn't even accept that all the races are the same species.

What happens then under your standard? Anybody who said that the races are/should be equal would be being offensive and would be liable to lose their jobs and have the lives ruined.

I mean under the standards you are proposing a supporter of MLK Jr. would be totally unhireable, and the civil rights movement (and every other civil rights movement that came before and after it) would have been dead in the water before they even begun.

I don't understand why you don't understand that allowing the majority opinion to oppress the minority opinion (which though you might not look at it that way, it is literally what you are proposing) is insane, absolutely insane, but not only insane but dangerous as well.

I mean freedom of speech literally exists to protect offensive speech, that is what it's all about, because not only does non-offensive speech not need protecting, but over and over history has proved that sometimes the offensive ideas and uncomfortable truths turn out be the best ideas, and if we don't have rules protecting expressing those ideas then society as a whole is much worse off for it.

This is some of the most unhinged false equivalency I've ever read

Because MLK said all men are created equal, Israel Folau be able to say all gays are evil and deserve to suffer? These are wildly, wildly different. Surely you know this.

Folau is not just being offensive. He is encouraging and even inciting discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

No, publicly broadcasting that opinion in way likely to cause damage to the organisation. He can hold any opinion he likes, just dont tweet it, or if you do expect that there will be consequences.

I can't believe how many people have said this yet certain dimwits still cannot grasp it.

 

[carcharias]

What about when societies expectations are wrong?

For example, what about 50-60+ years ago when the expectations of societies (broadly speaking) were totally racist, and not only was the idea of equal rights between the races considered offensive, but there was large portions of the population that wouldn't even accept that all the races are the same species.

What happens then under your standard? Anybody who said that the races are/should be equal would be being offensive and would be liable to lose their jobs and have the lives ruined.

I mean under the standards you are proposing a supporter of MLK Jr. would be totally unhireable, and the civil rights movement (and every other civil rights movement that came before and after it) would have been dead in the water before they even begun.

I don't understand why you don't understand that allowing the majority opinion to oppress the minority opinion (which though you might not look at it that way, it is literally what you are proposing) is insane, absolutely insane, but not only insane but dangerous as well.

I mean freedom of speech literally exists to protect offensive speech, that is what it's all about, because not only does non-offensive speech not need protecting, but over and over history has proved that sometimes the offensive ideas and uncomfortable truths turn out be the best ideas, and if we don't have rules protecting expressing those ideas then society as a whole is much worse off for it.

He can say whatever the f**k he wants .
Just don’t do it while employed by a business that doesn’t want its employees putting that shit online.
He should start his own business then he can abuse anyone he wants online without fear of being sacked.

There’s his freedom of speech.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

If his right to free speech is being suppressed then why hasn't his tweet been taken down?

 

[Pommy]

If his right to free speech is being suppressed then why hasn't his tweet been taken down?

Freedum!!!!

Even if it had it’s not stopping free speech.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean companies have to let you be a merkin on their platform, ask Alex Jones.

 

[AJB1102]

This has to stop. The hide of people to spend their money as they choose. Give it time and this luxury will be removed.

You can spend all your money on $2 scratchies and good luck charms, your choice entirely. You'd still be a moron though.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

He can say whatever the f**k he wants .
Just don’t do it while employed by a business that doesn’t want its employees putting that shit online.
He should start his own business then he can abuse anyone he wants online without fear of being sacked.

There’s his freedom of speech.

This is pretty much the sum of it....

Folua's right to free speech is not being suppressed, the company he works for is just expressing their right of response.

 

[Foreign Legion]

 

[TheFrog]

This is pretty much the sum of it....

Folua's right to free speech is not being suppressed, the company he works for is just expressing their right of response.

Whether that response was in fact lawful isn't a consideration, then?

 

[TheFrog]

Freedum!!!!

Even if it had it’s not stopping free speech.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean companies have to let you be a merkin on their platform, ask Alex Jones.

Rugby Australia would be lucky to own a Windows 98 laptop. I don't think Instagram could under any warped way of thinking be regarded as their platform.

 

[Pommy]

Rugby Australia would be lucky to own a Windows 98 laptop. I don't think Instagram could under any warped way of thinking be regarded as their platform.

And I never claimed they owned either so I have no idea what your point is.

 

[SBD82]

Rugby Australia would be lucky to own a Windows 98 laptop. I don't think Instagram could under any warped way of thinking be regarded as their platform.

You need to re-read. What was being discussed was whether Instagram taking down his post would have amounted to restricting his freedom of speech.