2003 Team Poster

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by Chicago1
I'm not refusing to buy a membership because I disagree with Murphy's opinion. I'm not renewing my membership because he chose to express his opinion in an inappropriate forum, in my opinion, and the club has taken a de facto stance on the issue by allowing him to express his opinion in such a manner and have that political opinion on permanent display on the team poster. The club had a choice in the matter. They chose to get invoved by NOT getting involved. That is the message that MY protest will be to the club. Politics do NOT belong in footy! Murphy's choice of expressing his opinion in such a forum would be similar to me wearing a "Vote Liberal" badge on the day of my school's staff photo. I doubt very much that I would be allowed to do so by the school administration since it would be considered unprofessional and inappropriate. The club didn't demand a similar action from him which is fair enough, it was their decision. However, they DID choose to allow the message to be permanently displayed on the team photo. That is what I object to.

Murphy chose to use OUR club as a forum for his political agenda. I just want to remind him and the club that there are consequences to such actions. Money talks at a "cash strapped club", even though my A$200 is a miniscule amount when talking about being in debt for millions.

a) By using OUR city as a forum for peace protests all Melbournions that don't want war haven't moved out.

b) you are involving the politics even further

c) If you are not buying a membership due to how he used our club would you still be complaining if he had "i love war" on his arm? You have used bigfooty to show your support for war, which may loose memberships, and i haven't stopped using bigfooty!

 

[Chops]

Originally posted by sigscotty
A political statement written by Murphy is on the poster. Is that right or wrong chops?

Wrong I believe. Murphy wrote the message on his arm. The photographer took the photo. The publisher printed it. etc
What is the world coming to if one person can't voice an opinion? in the end the players aren't robots they are human. He felt strongly enough to write it, good for him.


Of course they should have air brushed it out, just as they should if someone else put KKK on their arm.
What would have caused more controversy? Air brushing or leaving it? They didn't even fix Herb Henderson in the TOC painting.

 

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by Chops
Neither is Murphy's arm

this gets my vote for quote of the day!

maybe we are all taking this too far. I seriously don't think the club has the power to stop Murph.

If he had it tatooed on his forehead would you not want him to play because he's in a team jumper?

I think by saying he doesn't want war he's taked a "nuetral" stance. He doesn't want people to die! It's not that he's targetting part of the community.

 

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
Have you even seen the normal sized photo? It's so small that it's barely noticeable – hence why it got through. You’re punishing the club because some bloke checking over a photo with dozens of people in it didn’t spot a piece of scribble (which isn’t more than a couple of millimetres in diameter) on one bloke’s forearm.

But the main point here is that Murphy is one player who was acting on his own accord. What he did wasn’t illegal, racist or offensive, nor was it in breach of any codes of conduct - If you disagree with his actions, by all means write to him/ tell him that you think they were inappropriate, just like the club and AFL has done in the past month.

But why you've chosen to punish the club is beyond me – I mean, using your criteria, I could just as easily take this stance: Rohde swore, I hate people who swear - let the club rot in hell when it needs me the most. Or: Chris Grant says "no" in answering a direct question about whether he thinks Saddam is an honourable man - this is political, he was wearing a Bulldog jumper - f**k the club, I'll teach them a lesson.

It is a free country, and given that there’s no industry-wide rules condemning it, he made use an opportunity to express himself. What next, you won’t buy a membership because a player was wearing a necklace with a cross on it? Football and religion don’t mix - quick, run to Herald Sun and tell them your ‘story’!

For everyone who found it inappropriate, there’ll be others who’ll applaud it. For everyone who agrees with him, there’ll be someone who’ll disagree. For every person who thinks it was immature, there’ll be another person who thinks it took great guts and initiative. For anyone who thinks it should have been airbrushed, there’ll be others who’ll believe that’s impairing his freedom of speech. For anyone who thinks politics and sport shouldn’t mix, there’ll be another who thinks it’s better having players thinking/ being passionate about and expressing their beliefs rather than having their world revolve around booze and playstation games. For everyone who thinks your position on it is justified, there'll be others who think it's incredibly thin-skinned.

What do you hope comes of it? More members join you and jump ship? Want to give the club a little more negative press? Want to spend money which we don’t have in recalling all the posters which have been sold and issue new ones where it’s been airbrushed? What?

This is the most sickening part. Because of the position the club is in, you want to bend it over just to suit your own petty protest. You come here, the club gives you better treatment than it affords its own past players, and you repay it with bullshlt like this and trying to rubbish it in the papers. Pathetic.

Well said, Westy. I totally agree. Especially with the last part.

 

[sigscotty]

For anyone who thinks it should have been airbrushed, there’ll be others who’ll believe that’s impairing his freedom of speech.

The fact that differing opinions exist doesn't make them equaully right.

I don't think anybody besides chicago disagrees with your basic point that its not a very strong reason to not get a membership.

a) By using OUR city as a forum for peace protests all Melbournions that don't want war haven't moved out.

You seem to be missing the point. I have no problem with Murph using the WO to hold a press conference about why he is against the war, it is the opportunistic grab for attention via a bulldog funded piece of merchandise that is the issue.

 

[Rocco Jones]

It's not what Murphy said that makes him wrong it's the fact that he used the club.

I think what he actually says in a separate issue. It being lawful, not racist or reasonably offensive makes it much more forgiveable but still wrong.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by dancingdoggie17

maybe we are all taking this too far. I seriously don't think the club has the power to stop Murph.

I think by saying he doesn't want war he's taked a "nuetral" stance. He doesn't want people to die! It's not that he's targetting part of the community.

A nuetral stance gem would be to have no message, surely you understand that.

The club does have the power to insure they are not used as a way of putting forth a political message. Would you be just as accepting of a political message that you found offensive to be in the poster?

I don't think it is a big deal, i think Murph should forward his political agenda in ways that don't involve the club, but i don't think he had bad intentions when doing it.

 

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by sigscotty


You seem to be missing the point. I have no problem with Murph using the WO to hold a press conference about why he is against the war, it is the opportunistic grab for attention via a bulldog funded piece of merchandise that is the issue.

Are you serious? So if Murph had a press conference outside the whitten oval, with the Bulldogs colours behind him, and said he didn't want a war, you wouldn't care. But you care about it in a stupid team photo.

If it was a media conference the media would run with it, it would be something to actually put on air. No-one really cares about the team photo, and unless you know that it's there you probably wouldn't notice it.

Boy did you get rolled!

What do you think about this, Chicago?

 

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by sigscotty
A nuetral stance gem would be to have no message, surely you understand that.

The club does have the power to insure they are not used as a way of putting forth a political message. Would you be just as accepting of a political message that you found offensive to be in the poster?

I don't think it is a big deal, i think Murph should forward his political agenda in ways that don't involve the club, but i don't think he had bad intentions when doing it.

No stance means he doesnot have a stance. That is different to actually having a nuetral one. No, i don't understand your definition

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by Chops
Wrong I believe. Murphy wrote the message on his arm. The photographer took the photo. The publisher printed it. etc
What is the world coming to if one person can't voice an opinion? in the end the players aren't robots they are human. He felt strongly enough to write it, good for him.

So you are saying there is no political message written by murphy on the poster? I think you will find the whole point of the discussion is that THERE IS! He only wrote in on his arm because he knew it would end up on the poster.

Nobody wants to stop him voicing his opinion, how many times will that be said before you get it? So would you be just as happy for him to do it if he felt strongly enough about supporting the KKK? Would it be "good on him" then.

I am not arguing that those two are equally offensive, but to allow one is to open the door for the other.

 

[Rocco Jones]

Originally posted by dancingdoggie17
Are you serious? So if Murph had a press conference outside the whitten oval, with the Bulldogs colours behind him, and said he didn't want a war, you wouldn't care. But you care about it in a stupid team photo.

Sig said in other ways that "don't involve the club".

The Bulldogs colours behind him involves the club (assuming you mean the background the club has during press conferences)Gem. If he wants to make a statement he should do it as an individual.

 

[Chops]

Originally posted by sigscotty
So you are saying there is no political message written by murphy on the poster? I think you will find the whole point of the discussion is that THERE IS! He only wrote in on his arm because he knew it would end up on the poster.

Nobody wants to stop him voicing his opinion, how many times will that be said before you get it? So would you be just as happy for him to do it if he felt strongly enough about supporting the KKK? Would it be "good on him" then.

I am not arguing that those two are equally offensive, but to allow one is to open the door for the other.

Think supporting the KKK and not wanting a war are completely different things.

 

[Rocco Jones]

Originally posted by Chops
Think supporting the KKK and not wanting a war are completely different things.

Using the club to get a political statement across is wrong no matter what that statement maybe.

I do agree they are different in terms of how wrong it would be.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by dancingdoggie17
Are you serious? So if Murph had a press conference outside the whitten oval, with the Bulldogs colours behind him, and said he didn't want a war, you wouldn't care. But you care about it in a stupid team photo.

If it was a media conference the media would run with it, it would be something to actually put on air. No-one really cares about the team photo, and unless you know that it's there you probably wouldn't notice it.

Boy did you get rolled!

i got rolled? Its good that you aren't a ****er.

I don't care if Murph gets lots of attention for his views. If you think that is what it is about you must think i am just against what he is saying, which is not the case, or more importantly the point AT ALL. All i am saying is that an official club photo shouldn't be the place to put forward a politcal view.

Murph having our colours (as long as it wasn't set up in a way that made it look like he had club backing for his opinion) in the background means nothing accept he plays for the bulldogs, everyone knows he plays for the western bulldogs, that is a fact. That view being expressed in an official club document is all i am against. Because : That says more than Robert Murphy has this opinion and he plays for the bulldogs, it says Robert murphy has this opinion and he plays for the bulldogs who are happy for him to express his opinion using their official documents. it is the very last part of that, and that part alone that i have a problem with. Comon gemma, you tell us about how good you go at school, surely you can understand that difference?

Edited to try and make the most pertinent point bigger.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by Chops
Think supporting the KKK and not wanting a war are completely different things.

They are both legal, and they are both political.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by dancingdoggie17
No stance means he doesnot have a stance. That is different to actually having a nuetral one. No, i don't understand your definition

I didn't say no stance, i said no message, as in no message on his arm in the club photo would be the best way to express a nuetral view.

Having 'no war' on his arm dos not express a nuetral view at all.

 

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by sigscotty
i got rolled? Its good that you aren't a ****er.

I don't care if Murph gets lots of attention for his views. If you think that is what it is about you must think i am just against what he is saying, which is not the case, or more importantly the point AT ALL. All i am saying is that an official club photo shouldn't be the place to put forward a politcal view.

Murph having our colours (as long as it wasn't set up in a way that made it look like he had club backing for his opinion) in the background means nothing accept he plays for the bulldogs, everyone knows he plays for the western bulldogs, that is a fact. That view being expressed in an official club document is all i am against. Because : That says more than Robert Murphy has this opinion and he plays for the bulldogs, it says Robert murphy has this opinion and he plays for the bulldogs who are happy for him to express his opinion using their official documents. it is the very last part of that, and that part alone that i have a problem with.

being in the photo means the club support him? If the club let him go ahead with a press conference at the whitten oval would say to me they support him more than some stupid picture that no-one really cares about!

How exactly do you have the colours NOT looking like the club supports him?

A press conference is obvious, a little thing written on his arm isn't.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by dancingdoggie17
being in the photo means the club support him? If the club let him go ahead with a press conference at the whitten oval would say to me they support him more than some stupid picture that no-one really cares about!

How exactly do you have the colours NOT looking like the club supports him?

A press conference is obvious, a little thing written on his arm isn't.

Ok, for the 87th time, it is not about the obviousness of it, or how many people it will reach.

The colours (assuming you dont mean some sort of official thing that the club puts up for official western bulldog sponsored press conferences) being in the background suggests the club supports him no more than they support me if i throw on a doggy jumper, go to the WO and say something to a reporter.

As i have said a few times i too dont think it is that big a deal, just that an official club document (even if not many people will see it gem) is not the place for such things. Thats all.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
Have you even seen the normal sized photo? It's so small that it's barely noticeable – hence why it got through. You’re punishing the club because some bloke checking over a photo with dozens of people in it didn’t spot a piece of scribble (which isn’t more than a couple of millimetres in diameter) on one bloke’s forearm.

According to the Age article regarding Murphy's protest a "Bulldogs spokesman" states clearly that the club believed he had the right to do it.:

War protest goes to Dogs in full colour

By_Karen Lyon
March 05 2003


In a silent and understated way, emerging Western Bulldogs star Robert Murphy has shown his opposition to a possible war against Iraq by protesting during the team's official 2003 team photograph.
When the photo was taken at Whitten Oval three weeks ago, it is believed the words "No War" were written on his forearm.
Last night, Murphy, 20, declined to comment, but a Bulldogs spokesman said the player was entitled to his opinion.
The proofs of the photograph are not yet available to the club and it is unknown whether the gesture is visible on the final product.
"We haven't seen the photograph yet," the spokesman said. "People have their own opinions and they are entitled to those opinions. If Robert has chosen to voice his opinion, he is entitled to it."

Doesn't seem to me that the following is true:

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
If you disagree with his actions, by all means write to him/ tell him that you think they were inappropriate, just like the club and AFL has done in the past month.

Seems the club condoned what he did according to a "Bulldogs spokesman".

Originally posted by Westy_Boy

For everyone who found it inappropriate, there’ll be others who’ll applaud it. For everyone who agrees with him, there’ll be someone who’ll disagree. For every person who thinks it was immature, there’ll be another person who thinks it took great guts and initiative. For anyone who thinks it should have been airbrushed, there’ll be others who’ll believe that’s impairing his freedom of speech. For anyone who thinks politics and sport shouldn’t mix, there’ll be another who thinks it’s better having players thinking/ being passionate about and expressing their beliefs rather than having their world revolve around booze and playstation games. For everyone who thinks your position on it is justified, there'll be others who think it's incredibly thin-skinned.

So I'm not allowed to protest in the way I think is appropriate and voice my opinion through an appropriate forum if requested? I wonder how the Age got wind of Murphy's protest? Sorry, but my online sources are limited. I'm not sure where he explained his action to the press. I did try to contact the club FOUR times(one e-mail was returned "User unknown") regarding the matter, but I'm now into my third week of waiting since my first e-mail.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
What do you hope comes of it? More members join you and jump ship? Want to give the club a little more negative press? Want to spend money which we don’t have in recalling all the posters which have been sold and issue new ones where it’s been airbrushed? What?

People can make up their own minds as to what to do including the club. A simple e-mail reply three weeks ago explaining their stance would probably have satisfied me at that stage. Alas, nothing has arrived.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
This is the most sickening part. Because of the position the club is in, you want to bend it over just to suit your own petty protest. You come here, the club gives you better treatment than it affords its own past players, and you repay it with bullshlt like this and trying to rubbish it in the papers. Pathetic.

So MY protest is "petty"? I appreciate your candor. It may well be, in your opinion, but by my expressing it on these boards, I certainly have gathered 'some' publicity for it. I have never condemned Murphy's protest as "petty", just that it was expressed in an inappropriate forum.

And as for the part about my treatment by the club last year...... the club gained positive publicity about my visit at a time when it almost didn't even have a sponsor. And do you know how the club gained that publicity? No, not through their work. A month before my visit I wrote to the columnist to explain about my trip and "sold" my story to her because of the footy club's plight. At the stage of my first correspondence to her in early April, the club had no major sponsor. I was hoping that my story might help the club out a bit. Further correspondence with the paper even asked me not to speak to other media outlets in case the paper wanted to publicise my visit. They did and the club gained some POSITIVE publicity from it. It was a two way street Westy_Boy. For example, don't you think the club was using me when I was asked by Smorgo to say a few words at the President's Club luncheon? Both the club and I gained from the positive publicity. Your comment "the club gives you better treatment than it affords its own past players" is indeed interesting to note. I guess many things can be read into that.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Chops
No worries C1.
I have no problem with what you have as an avatar or what Murphy wrote on his arm. Think they are very similar statements/opinions by individuals. Everyone is entitled and Murphys is hardly visible on the team poster.

That's OK, Chops. And thanks for voicing your opinion in a respectful manner. I'll be changing my avatar in just a bit. Hmmm...... what shall I choose next? Stay tuned for something noncontroversial. Well.... maybe!

 

[Captain Sensible]

This is a freedom of speech issue. I believe in freedom of speech all the time, not just when I agree with what is said. I may buy another membership in order to stand up for Murphy's freedom of speech.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by localyokel
This is a freedom of speech issue. I believe in freedom of speech all the time, not just when I agree with what is said.

Local i agree with what he said, agree he has the right to say it, but dont think he should of said it there. Freedom of speech and freedom to put forward a political agenda via a footy clubs team photo are NOT the same thing IMO.

As it seems most people think they are one and the same thing, can someone please explain to me why not allowing Rob the use of a Western Bulldogs document as a vehicle to promote his political opinion impinges on his freedom of speech.

And does this mean we are happy for next years photo to be full of players with writing on their arms supporting whatever cause they choose? If you say yes, fair enough we just disagree about where the line between freedom of speech and an organisations right not to let itself be used to further a political agenda lies. If you say no you have to say no for Murph this year as well.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by sigscotty
.

And does this mean we are happy for next years photo to be full of players with writing on their arms supporting whatever cause they choose?

They could hold placards up with political messages on them as far as I am concerned. If it doesnt preclude it on a contract they signed of their own free will then they have every right to.


Whats the difference between the sponsors logo and a political message?

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by localyokel
This is a freedom of speech issue. I believe in freedom of speech all the time, not just when I agree with what is said.

Then why can't I say **** or **** or **** on BF? Hmmm..... maybe not the appropriate forum. But what about "freedom of speech all the time"?

Originally posted by localyokel
I may buy another membership in order to stand up for Murphy's freedom of speech.

Good! But then again, aren't your political leanings which clearly agree with the message the real reason for doing so? Now, if Player X had had "Vote One Nation" written on his arm would you still be willing to buy another membership to offset another person's non-renewal for objecting to the message which appeared on a club poster? Would that fall into the category of "all the time, not just when I agree with what is said"? Just something to think about.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by localyokel
They could hold placards up with political messages on them as far as I am concerned. If it doesnt preclude it on a contract they signed of their own free will then they have every right to.


Whats the difference between the sponsors logo and a political message?

Sponsors logo IS club backed. So it being in an official club document makes sense. It is a bulldog document after all, not a rob murphy document, what is in it should be representative of the club IMO, and not personal political opinions.

I am not arguing legal right here, so whats in the contract is of no consequence to me.

If you are willing to allow them political messages of any kind, that is fair enough, at least your view is consistent, which i dont think is the case for some others.