Opinion Non-Crows AFL 10

[Mostyn]

I'm sure many opponents called Rance various more fruity versions of "pesky door-knocker" in his playing days.

Don't recall any bans being dished out for religious vilification.

Maybe it never happened.

 

[Scorpus]

Thomas just seems like a genuine piece of s**t though. It's hard to see him getting back on a list now, and if he does, he will get booed, which will open another can of worms.

Not just booed, he keeps getting suspended for his actions

 

[cmndstab]

First — kudos on being able to actually comprehend the argument.

I do regard speech as exceptional. This was an uncontroversial take up until very recently.

I’m also fully aware that approach allows for that rare occasion when someone stoops way too low.

But I firmly believe the upsides outweigh the downsides, not only in a sporting context, but a societal one too.



The reality is these matters can only ever result in arbitrary punishments, which is partly why I hold the above position.

How do you make the punishments non-arbitrary? A grading system with a list of naughty words and slurs?

Taken to its logical conclusion this all very quickly descends into the absurd.

I’d argue we’re already there.

Settle down with the "able to comprehend the argument" stuff. Everyone understands your argument, they just don't all agree with it.

Clearly, you think that all speech should be permitted during AFL matches. I disagree. I think that it is better that some speech is out of bounds and attracts a punishment.

I don't think the AFL has an obligation to police speech, per se. I think they've made a decision based on societal trends that not doing so will hurt their bottom line more than doing so. In any event, it's their call. They can decide whether to do it or not. It's then up to you to decide whether their decision upsets you enough to stop watching.

I can point to the harm that hate speech causes, both in the moment (which is usually minor but not always), and in the broader context of perpetuating a culture of discrimination. You can point to the detrimental and chilling effects of punishing speech. I think the issues I've raised are more important, apparently you disagree. It's really not that complicated.



You keep pointing out that things were done differently in the past. There are lots of things that we've changed in modern years, and I would say for the better. There are lots of thing that were seen as acceptable in the past that we rightly now condemn. As an argument, simply saying "it used to be okay" doesn't hold water.

All punishments are "arbitrary". What is the difference between a jumper punch, or a hip and shoulder, or a harder hip and shoulder? The AFL decides on punishments based on what they've done previously, and then adjusts them as societal attitudes change. People have brought up Barry Hall earlier, if you think he would get the same punishment today that he got back then you're kidding yourself. All punishments the AFL applies are arbitrary, based on gut feel and the temperature of society. To the extent that there are rubrics which are applied, it's only because there are certain acts which are more common than others and can thus be easily classified, and even then there is wriggle room in the punishment. The same is true for things like slurs - there are well-established categories of slurs and an understanding that certain words or statements are more harmful than others. None of this is novel, and the idea that this would "quickly descend into the absurd" is nonsense.

 

[AFC979810]

Thomas just seems like a genuine piece of s**t though. It's hard to see him getting back on a list now, and if he does, he will get booed, which will open another can of worms.

TBH don't really mind. As long as he can stay on the right side of the law and can help us win footy games - I am all in.

 

[AFC979810]

Settle down with the "able to comprehend the argument" stuff. Everyone understands your argument, they just don't all agree with it.

Ha ha ha.

 

[Slippery Pete]

All punishments are "arbitrary".

That’s only because the AFL is useless!

But from a practical standpoint, they have a grading system for tribunal matters.

The law also has a grading system of sorts, for different types & severities of physical assaults. In both the charging and sentencing arenas.

How do you have a similar grading system for mean words, so that punishments aren’t totally arbitrary?

Seriously, how?

 

[footy4ever]

Chayce has his knockers on here, but he has been (so far) a perfect example of a good honest kid at the AFC and reasonable footballer.

Absolutely.

 

[1970crow]

Sure, but it's being discussed as a culture war across multiple threads. I'm over it.
Take that rubbish to Facebook with the other boomers.

So it’s just right wingers arguing amongst themselves?

 

[jackster83]

That’s only because the AFL is useless!

But from a practical standpoint, they at least have a grading system for tribunal matters.

The law also has a grading system of sorts, for different types & severities of physical assaults. In both the charging and sentencing arenas.

How do you have a similar grading system for mean words, so that punishments aren’t totally arbitrary?

Seriously, how?

Players should just stick to insulting opponents' sick kids or wishing death on their relatives.

 

[Slippery Pete]

So it’s just right wingers arguing amongst themselves?

It’s just right-wingers arguing with their alias accounts.

 

[BACCS]

TBH don't really mind. As long as he can stay on the right side of the law and can help us win footy games - I am all in.

He has multiple publicly known instances of harassing his ex girlfriend and continues to do it despite North trying to put him through educational classes. Those that knew him in Tassie do not speak highly of him either. How are you accepting of such behaviour because he can kick a footy? This is very very different to being caught with a line of coke on a night out.

 

[Slippery Pete]

He has multiple publicly known instances of harassing his ex girlfriend and continues to do it despite North trying to put him through educational classes. Those that knew him in Tassie do not speak highly of him either. How are you accepting of such behaviour because he can kick a footy? This is very very different to being caught with a line of coke on a night out.

CEO of North seems to think he isn’t fixable, if the leaked email is anything to go by.

Having said that, the Crows hierarchy thought the same thing about Stengle.

 

[AFC979810]

He has multiple publicly known instances of harassing his ex girlfriend and continues to do it despite North trying to put him through educational classes. Those that knew him in Tassie do not speak highly of him either. How are you accepting of such behaviour because he can kick a footy? This is very very different to being caught with a line of coke on a night out.

Put simply. I watch the Crows because I want them to win.

Carey banged his best mates wife - dont care.
Dustin Martin - from all reports a pretty garbage human - dont care.

If Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan were 194cm Elite midfielders - I would have no issue bringing them in either.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Put simply. I watch the Crows because I want them to win.

Carey banged his best mates wife - dont care.
Dustin Martin - from all reports a pretty garbage human - dont care.

If Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan were 194cm Elite midfielders - I would have no issue bringing them in either.

Last gif today I promise

 

[skam85]

Put simply. I watch the Crows because I want them to win.

Carey banged his best mates wife - dont care.
Dustin Martin - from all reports a pretty garbage human - dont care.

If Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan were 194cm Elite midfielders - I would have no issue bringing them in either.

Hitler as a mobile ruckman?

 

[Southerntakeover]

First — kudos on being able to actually comprehend the argument.

I do regard speech as exceptional. This was an uncontroversial take up until very recently.

I’m also fully aware that approach allows for that rare occasion when someone stoops way too low.

But I firmly believe the upsides outweigh the downsides, not only in a sporting context, but a societal one too.

You may be overstating both the historical scope of any right to free speech (which is not a common law right), and it's effect.

We have to be careful not to try to import American constitutional arguments out of their context.

Even where the right exists, it is not a protection against consequence: defamation though freely uttered has long been actionable.

Take it out of its present context: the AFL can never restrict speech? How do they protect sponsorship arrangements?

The reality is these matters can only ever result in arbitrary punishments, which is partly why I hold the above position.

How do you make the punishments non-arbitrary? A grading system with a list of naughty words and slurs?

Taken to its logical conclusion this all very quickly descends into the absurd.

I’d argue we’re already there.

Only if you stretch the meaning of arbitrary beyond descriptive value.

Something being verbal rather than physical doesn't increase the arbitrariness of regulating it inherently.

This is how any rules based regulation of conduct operates, whether criminal or civil.
Straining constantly for absurd extensions all the time doesn't demonstrate forced absurdity in any way.

 

[cmndstab]

That’s only because the AFL is useless!

But from a practical standpoint, they have a grading system for tribunal matters.

The law also has a grading system of sorts, for different types & severities of physical assaults. In both the charging and sentencing arenas.

How do you have a similar grading system for mean words, so that punishments aren’t totally arbitrary?

Seriously, how?

It's not really that difficult. You carve out certain kinds of hate speech that you deem to be unacceptable, and then you penalise it accordingly. Some words, statements, or categories of hate speech are deemed to be worse than others and so incur harsher penalties. Over time they adjust until it "feels right".

Fortunately, the AFL doesn't have to start from scratch here, the rest of society has been doing this for years and years, so they can just piggyback on the back of that.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Hitler as a mobile ruckman?

I’ve graded this as a level 3 speech offence, this has incurred a suspension of three weeks, suspended for two weeks and 6 days if you change your custom title to Cartel 2IC

 

[cmndstab]

Put simply. I watch the Crows because I want them to win.

Carey banged his best mates wife - dont care.
Dustin Martin - from all reports a pretty garbage human - dont care.

If Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan were 194cm Elite midfielders - I would have no issue bringing them in either.

There is a distinction here, though. I don't mind if players are dicks. I don't care if they're a nice bloke or whatever. I do mind if players are doing things that are going to require punitive action, like going around bashing up women.

If one of our players is just a crappy partner, I don't really care about that. If he's a domestic abuser, then I do care about that.

 

[Slippery Pete]

the rest of society has been doing this for years and years,

Yes and it has become absurd

 

[cmndstab]

Yes and it has become absurd

That's your opinion. I think it has markedly improved.

Clearly, the AFL thinks that they are better off moving with the times as well. They wouldn't do so if they thought it was going to hurt their bottom line.

 

[AFC979810]

Hitler as a mobile ruckman?

Does he have a Brody Grundy sized contract?

 

[1970crow]

Thomas just seems like a genuine piece of s**t though. It's hard to see him getting back on a list now, and if he does, he will get booed, which will open another can of worms.

Gut feel is that he’s a wannabe gangster and is incapable of moderating his language when he feels slighted. The language quoted early in the piece that included ‘crap gonna get real’ would be perfectly acceptable if you’re watching a bloods and Crips movie. If he’s not learnt by now, you have to wonder if he can. That said, haven’t read anything further and the complaints might pre-date his courses.

 

[AFC979810]

There is a distinction here, though. I don't mind if players are dicks. I don't care if they're a nice bloke or whatever. I do mind if players are doing things that are going to require punitive action, like going around bashing up women.

If one of our players is just a crappy partner, I don't really care about that. If he's a domestic abuser, then I do care about that.

What if he doesn't get caught and helps us win a flag?

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Put simply. I watch the Crows because I want them to win.

Carey banged his best mates wife - dont care.
Dustin Martin - from all reports a pretty garbage human - dont care.

If Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan were 194cm Elite midfielders - I would have no issue bringing them in either.

"I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."
Groucho Marx