AFL Integriy Unit ????

[Masher]

https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/tayla-...ls/4296724f-efd9-4eb9-ba6f-4fc47631d286#close

The AFL integrity unit will attempt to identify online trolls ....
Integrity unit investigators .....

I am against nasty online abuse but this looks like some sort of gestapo or commie hit squad. Who has the final say to what constitutes real abuse of some comic fun???

Next will they will be telling Auskick kids to report their parents to the AFL Integrity Unit for any comments that were said at home

So why don't they investigate Gillan's greedy salary

 

[Bluelegs]

I thought the AFL Integrity Unit was a parody account on twitter.

 

[Sausages]

https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/tayla-...ls/4296724f-efd9-4eb9-ba6f-4fc47631d286#close

The AFL integrity unit will attempt to identify online trolls ....
Integrity unit investigators .....

I am against nasty online abuse but this looks like some sort of gestapo or commie hit squad. Who has the final say to what constitutes real abuse or some comic fun???

Next will they will be telling Auskick kids to report their parents to the AFL Integrity Unit for any comments that were said at home

So why don't they investigate Gillan's disgusting salary

I can see you are unfamiliar with your workplace Harassment policies - typically, the person who has the final say is the TARGET of the commentary/action. So, I can call my mate a muppet at the pub....but if I say that to a co-worker who finds it offensive, I need to self-moderate and refrain from doing so.

I won't bother dealing with the rest of your post, as it's largely based in fantasy.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Hmm i want to see more action taken against online Racists and hooligans than some comments on a Tayla Harris picture.

 

[GlocksTickin]

David King should be the president.

 

[M Malice]

Sam Newman's new role?

 

[bzparkes]

Hmm i want to see more action taken against online Racists and hooligans than some comments on a Tayla Harris picture.

Huh? They’re exactly the same kind of people.

 

[telsor]

It's a logical expansion of their role.

After all, the purpose of the 'integrity unit' is to silence people who might say things the AFL doesn't like.

 

[kozi]

Some of the comments directed at Harris were pathetic. Channel 7 taking down the post because of it was even more pathetic.

However there’s a double standard at play here. If it was a photo of a male player and some ladies were making similar comments about said player’s appearance it wouldn’t get a reaction at all, let alone an integrity unit looking into it.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Worse things have been said about white male players, but that’s not the flavour of the month so we’ll let that go.

 

[FRUMPY]

What did make Carlisle get for his comments about Marc Murphy's wife? Where was the ingrity unit there? Did they revoke his playing contract? What about when Eddie dropped king Kong bout hooded, no integrity unit.

Integrity unit that has no integrity

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Masher]

I won't bother dealing with the rest of your post, as it's largely based in fantasy.

That hurt my feelings so I want the Big Footy Integrity Unit to hunt you down and humiliate you publically so you never post again

 

[Masher]

AFL Integrity Unit

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Huh? They’re exactly the same kind of people.

With a entirely different response from the AFL.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

I can see you are unfamiliar with your workplace Harassment policies - typically, the person who has the final say is the TARGET of the commentary/action. So, I can call my mate a muppet at the pub....but if I say that to a co-worker who finds it offensive, I need to self-moderate and refrain from doing so.

I won't bother dealing with the rest of your post, as it's largely based in fantasy.

So social media is considered part of the work place?

That's certainly new

 

[Xtreme]

Good luck trying to identify all of the egg profiles!

 

[Sausages]

So social media is considered part of the work place?

That's certainly new

Not really new.

It was a workplace (in this case, Ch7) that was subjected to offensive material through the auspices of social media (Facebook) within the online property of the business. Harris had a concern - it was her image that was being defamed. The business ALSO has a claim - it was happening on their social media site.

If you want to test how this works for an individual, do the following experiment - from home, using your own personal social media profile which doesn't indicate your employer in any way - go to some random image on social media unconnected with your workplace and start posting insulting, derogatory comments - screenshot it and show it to your HR department the next day. Let me know what they say. Probably, they'll express concern that you did that and possibly investigate if they are exposed to any liability should your actions be connected with them.

Social media is notoriously tricky to navigate, so the operating theory is that it is considered public space - no different to being in a shopping center. If you charge about yelling obscenities or decide to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with offensive imagery - you are liable for your actions. That might mean being escorted out by the local security, or require something more serious. THEN the person WHO WAS OFFENDED or TARGETTED by your actions has rights to take civil action against you. Now do that in a work uniform - your EMPLOYER now has legalities to observe, both against you (as an employee) and, possibly, to the injured party - even if you weren't at work at the time. The environment called public space still has responsibilities and protections for those people occupying that space.

Harris' image, being posted under license from her employer on a social media platform, would have been earning income for at least 4 parties - Harris, Ch7, AFLW and Facebook. So there was a workplace environment present - the owner of the media site (in this case Ch7) definately had a duty to protect it's own image, the image of the AFLW and the community standards of Facebook. Whether Harris was included in that workplace could be debated, but it doesn't really change the fact that it was her image being defamed - she is entitled to pursue legal avenues of redress, either with Ch7, AFLW, Facebook or ideally from the architects of the defamatory/abusive statements.

A similar scenario that someone is exposed to is when they get home from work, pour a scotch and proceed to head to 8chan and incel the night away - their employer can still consider them to be representing them. If their employer finds out or someone connected with their workplace finds out (such as a customer or supplier)....they could be in strife. The line between where work starts and finishes is increasingly blurry.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Not really new.

It was a workplace (in this case, Ch7) that was subjected to offensive material through the auspices of social media (Facebook) within the online property of the business. Harris had a concern - it was her image that was being defamed. The business ALSO has a claim - it was happening on their social media site.

If you want to test how this works for an individual, do the following experiment - from home, using your own personal social media profile which doesn't indicate your employer in any way - go to some random image on social media unconnected with your workplace and start posting insulting, derogatory comments - screenshot it and show it to your HR department the next day. Let me know what they say. Probably, they'll express concern that you did that and possibly investigate if they are exposed to any liability should your actions be connected with them.

Social media is notoriously tricky to navigate, so the operating theory is that it is considered public space - no different to being in a shopping center. If you charge about yelling obscenities or decide to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with offensive imagery - you are liable for your actions. That might mean being escorted out by the local security, or require something more serious. THEN the person WHO WAS OFFENDED or TARGETTED by your actions has rights to take civil action against you. Now do that in a work uniform - your EMPLOYER now has legalities to observe, both against you (as an employee) and, possibly, to the injured party - even if you weren't at work at the time. The environment called public space still has responsibilities and protections for those people occupying that space.

Harris' image, being posted under license from her employer on a social media platform, would have been earning income for at least 4 parties - Harris, Ch7, AFLW and Facebook. So there was a workplace environment present - the owner of the media site (in this case Ch7) definately had a duty to protect it's own image, the image of the AFLW and the community standards of Facebook. Whether Harris was included in that workplace could be debated, but it doesn't really change the fact that it was her image being defamed - she is entitled to pursue legal avenues of redress, either with Ch7, AFLW, Facebook or ideally from the architects of the defamatory/abusive statements.

A similar scenario that someone is exposed to is when they get home from work, pour a scotch and proceed to head to 8chan and incel the night away - their employer can still consider them to be representing them. If their employer finds out or someone connected with their workplace finds out (such as a customer or supplier)....they could be in strife. The line between where work starts and finishes is increasingly blurry.

Well, knock me down with a feather, I actually learnt something on bf, thanks for the reply.

 

[Man0gwaR74]

George Orwell's 1984!
Blaming trolls and terorists for taking away our freedom!
If they wanted to tackle the real issue then they would address mental health. The working week; 3 days off, 4 days on = PROBLEM SOLVED!