-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
News Folau
- Thread starter Black_White
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,873
- 12,768
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Don't believe in God, Hate everything Folau says, but as Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I am a big lefty but both sides need to be reminded of that and then critique without outrage or name calling. Never going to happen though
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I am a big lefty but both sides need to be reminded of that and then critique without outrage or name calling. Never going to happen though
- Thread starter
- #53
Yes, free speech.
And yes, it comes with restrictions. As everything in society does.
But simply what Folau said wasn’t against any free speech laws. Only RA took offence because it believed his faith defining comments would hurt their “brand“, costing them money.
If they had have just issued a statement that his comments in no way reflected the views of RA then it would have gone away in a week.
But now it’s cost them 8mill and tarnished their reputation.
Lucky for you “peanut” comes under the free speech laws.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Signed on with a French Club, who have put restrictions in his contract similar to those he had in Aus
But....but.....what about his freedom of religious speech???
Nope the $ were more important
But....but.....what about his freedom of religious speech???
Nope the $ were more important
TradeDraft
Premium Platinum
1st I heard that Words are Illegal to Say
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Ok, try walking into a packed Picture Theater and yelling out "Fire Fire" and see how you go, or go onto an Plane and yell out "I've got a Bomb"
After all they are just words and speech is free right? no, hang on, we have restrictions on what we an say
SprooseMoose
Team Captain
- Jun 8, 2011
- 305
- 474
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
A bit late to the party...
"Free speech" literally means that a government won't censor you. Doesn't mean for a second that Facebook/Twitter/your workplace won't.
And perhaps the more important point: we have no Bill of Rights in this country - so we literally do not have the "right to free speech". We have an implied right to free speech, in that you can be pretty sure the government won't censor you unless there's a law that specifically says you can't say something. Shits me up the wall seeing dumb politicians defend discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of free speech, when as politicians, it's their actual job to know that we don't actually have it.
That the government would seek to use the Folau case as a basis/test-bed/justification for the Religious Freedom bill is disgusting as well. They'd like to give more rights of free (hateful) speech to morons like Folau, than to fellow non-religious people like myself, all while not accounting for basic actual free speech (which should be more important).
As for the case itself, everything that happened should have been allowed to have happened:
"Free speech" literally means that a government won't censor you. Doesn't mean for a second that Facebook/Twitter/your workplace won't.
And perhaps the more important point: we have no Bill of Rights in this country - so we literally do not have the "right to free speech". We have an implied right to free speech, in that you can be pretty sure the government won't censor you unless there's a law that specifically says you can't say something. Shits me up the wall seeing dumb politicians defend discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of free speech, when as politicians, it's their actual job to know that we don't actually have it.
That the government would seek to use the Folau case as a basis/test-bed/justification for the Religious Freedom bill is disgusting as well. They'd like to give more rights of free (hateful) speech to morons like Folau, than to fellow non-religious people like myself, all while not accounting for basic actual free speech (which should be more important).
As for the case itself, everything that happened should have been allowed to have happened:
- Folau did something that offended a lot of people. Not illegal, and he was never prevented from doing what he did or expressing himself
- As a consequence, people who were pissed off at him for what he did were allowed to voice their opposition
- Rugby Australia (if they can argue that he breached contract) were allowed to sack him
- As far as I'm aware, Folau still holds and preaches the same religious views as he did before this started, so his ability to practice his religion goes on unhindered.
TradeDraft
Premium Platinum
That is Common Sense not to do that. Falou is Totally Different
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
So you agree, there are some things a person can't say?....so you have heard of it, but earlier you said you hadn't
And so it should
