# Israel Folau, freedom of speech, and employer rights. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2019, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954 "2019-06-24T08:35:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/81 "2019-06-27T04:13:37Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Here’s the test - if you believe that sacking Folau for saying that gay people are going to hell is wrong AND ALSO that suspending [Roz Ward for saying the Australian flag is racist](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-suspends-safe-schools-cofounder-roz-ward-over-facebook-post-20160601-gp9ezu.html) is wrong, then congratulations, you are an actual advocate of free speech. I admit to having mixed feelings about these situations. One one hand I’m genuinely worried about stifling free speech and cries of “it’s not censorship because the government isn’t doing it” is a weak salve for my concerns. On the other hand outrageous comments on social media can reflect poorly on an employer as it may be offensive to customers and even other employees. So the company has a legitimate business interest in taking action when employees associated with the company make bigoted comments in public. As much as I hate to do this it looks like I’m just going to have to think for myself and judge each situation accordingly. In some cases I might find that the company has gone too far in censuring their employee for statements made outside of work. In other cases I’m sure I’ll be in agreement with the company. In this case I have no objection to the player getting in hot water for their statements. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/82 "2019-06-27T07:10:04Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > The argument that he’s being persecuted for his “religious beliefs” rather than “hate speech” ultimately boils down to “Hey, **I’m** not a bigot - it’s _ **God** _ who’s the bigot! If it were up to me, I’d be totally fine with gay people!”. Or, alternatively, it boils down to “Hey, if I call it hate speech, it is hate speech” and “It’s not me that’s the bigot – if it were up to me, I’d be totally fine with fundamentalists” Is there a definition? Do you get to define it however you like? If you get to define it however you like, can he define it however he likes? > [@BwanaBob](#): > > And we say it again - it’s NOT government censorship. That’s what’s forbidden. . Right. It’s big business censorship, and (now) in particular multinational social media company censorship. There is a group of people who think this is a problem. > [@Filbert](#): > > I dunno, sounds like the guy mentioned in the OP gets all wound up when the rainbows come out 😉 Actually, no. I means it _sounds_ like that, but if you’ve followed his trajectory and his statements, no, he doesn’t get all wound up when the rainbows come out. There’s a whole interesting set of re-allignments going on with this. Folau is getting support from political liberals, libertarians and the far left, because they don’t like the idea of private companies usurping the right of free speech. He’s not getting support from the organised church, because the last thing they want is to have freedom of atheism for church employees in schools and hospitals. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/83 "2019-06-27T10:14:47Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > Or, alternatively, it boils down to “Hey, if I call it hate speech, it is hate speech” and “It’s not me that’s the bigot – if it were up to me, I’d be totally fine with fundamentalists” The fact that you left out the key bit in the middle rather weakens this feeble false equivalence. My point was that “fundamentalists” (I’ll borrow your catch-all term here) often hide behind the excuse of faith to justify discriminatory behavior. Who or what am I outsourcing my purported ‘bigotry’ to? Those fundamentalists who aren’t actively working to make life difficult for other people (often merely due to those people existing in the first place), I’m fine with. I’m not condemning or persecuting them for merely being fundamentalists in the way that fundamentalists do to gay people; I condemn them where they take specific actions that seek to harm other people. There’s a huge difference between judging people for who they **are** and judging them for what they **do**. And that difference is pretty much where the line between bigotry and not-bigotry lies. Folau’s case is on the benign end of the spectrum and I support his right to say what he likes - but conversely his employer has the right to determine whether his remarks (coming from a prominent spokesperson of the team) are likely to have a sufficient negative net impact on “the game” (in reality their bottom line) or on his team to warrant firing him. And if he wants to take it to the courts, well, I’m fine with that too. But if you feel his right of free speech is being “usurped” by private companies, where do you draw the line? Do companies have **any** right to dissociate themselves from prominent employees who make controversial statements in public? What if Folau had expressed support for killing all Jews or having sex with children? Would his employers be justified in firing him then? If yes, then you’re not arguing against “corporate censorship”; you’re quibbling over where the line is. And if no, you’re arguing that companies should be held hostage by the personal beliefs and behaviors of their employees, no matter how extreme. > [@](#): > > Is there a definition? Do you get to define it however you like? If you get to define it however you like, can he define it however he likes? I wasn’t aware I ‘defined’ anything in my previous post. I didn’t even mention the term “hate speech”. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/84 "2019-06-27T10:48:42Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m waiting for the poster I was addressing to explain how Australia would benefit from having American style free speech protection. If you want to take a stab at it, I’m all ears. This isn’t a quiz show. Instead of making an argument or pointing out why another’s was flawed, you Just Asked a Question. So good on that poster for ignoring it. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/85 "2019-06-27T10:51:58Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > But if you feel his right of free speech is being “usurped” by private companies, where do you draw the line? Do companies have **any** right to dissociate themselves from prominent employees who make controversial statements in public? What if Folau had expressed support for killing all Jews or having sex with children? Would his employers be justified in firing him then? If yes, then you’re not arguing against “corporate censorship”; you’re quibbling over where the line is. And if no, you’re arguing that companies should be held hostage by the personal beliefs and behaviors of their employees, no matter how extreme. I don’t think the line is the content; I think it’s the public face aspect of the job. Which would be different for, say, the water boy. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/86 "2019-06-27T11:07:37Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I don’t think the line is the content; I think it’s the public face aspect of the job. Which would be different for, say, the water boy. It’s both. The more prominent a representative of the team/business you are, the more aware you have to be of the potential impact of the content of your public statements. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/87 "2019-06-27T11:12:21Z")
But then again I’m generally fine with at-will employment. My employer can fire me for a tweet or because it’s Thursday, and I don’t know that I want the government to tell them they can’t. Now the focus of the OP had a detailed employment contract, which is a different situation. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/88 "2019-06-27T12:57:13Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > This isn’t a quiz show. Instead of making an argument or pointing out why another’s was flawed, you Just Asked a Question. So good on that poster for ignoring it. And I’m ignoring your question. Yay me. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/89 "2019-06-27T17:39:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > And I’m ignoring your question. Yay me. I never asked one. I told you why something was irrelevant and invited you to counter me, which you have been unable to do. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/90 "2019-06-27T17:54:42Z")
Yes, golly what a tough question you asked. :rolleyes: If you can’t articulate how a specific right effects your life even at some higher philosophic level or how you feel it would impact the society around you then you’ve got a religion not a political belief. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/91 "2019-06-27T18:24:59Z")
Again, whether it is proper to abridge the right to say something is not dependant on whether I intend to say it or not. It would be wrong for DC to ban the word “cromulent” on signage. This has no significance to my life, as I do not ever intend to use the word on a sign. But that has no bearing on whether abridging that free speech right is right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/92 "2019-06-27T18:47:08Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Again, whether it is proper to abridge the right to say something is not dependant on whether I intend to say it or not. > . Oh, “again” is it? Did you notice I didn’t actually say anything about your wish to say anything? Maybe you should address what I actually asked, whch is how outlawing Holocaust denial might effect one’s life rather than “again” tell me that it’s not about whether you want to be a Holocaust denier. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/93 "2019-06-27T19:28:28Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Economic extortion to enforce uniformity of thought and to suppress religious freedom and freedom of expression is de facto censorship. So my Muslim friend who got fired from his job at a Baptist ministry after he started expressing his beliefs, should not have been fired, and should be compensated? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/94 "2019-06-27T23:24:41Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Getting back to the subject at hand, I’ve decided on the perfect test to determine which people are honestly concerned about the principles of free speech in the Israel Folau case. > > Here’s the test - if you believe that sacking Folau for saying that gay people are going to hell is wrong AND ALSO that suspending [Roz Ward for saying the Australian flag is racist](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-suspends-safe-schools-cofounder-roz-ward-over-facebook-post-20160601-gp9ezu.html) is wrong, then congratulations, you are an actual advocate of free speech. > > Otherwise, you’re just emotionally reacting to the goring of your own ox I’ll take that, but in reverse. If Australia Rugby thinks that both actions are equally detrimental to their public reputation and distract from the game, then they’re justified in treating both in the same way under their Code of Conduct. They offer players a chance to make gobs of money, provided they play the game and don’t bring the Rugby association into public image problems. Both players signed on to that deal, so can’t squawk if the association applies it evenly to them both. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/95 "2019-06-28T10:27:10Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Getting back to the subject at hand, I’ve decided on the perfect test to determine which people are honestly concerned about the principles of free speech in the Israel Folau case. > > Here’s the test - if you believe that sacking Folau for saying that gay people are going to hell is wrong AND ALSO that suspending [Roz Ward for saying the Australian flag is racist](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-suspends-safe-schools-cofounder-roz-ward-over-facebook-post-20160601-gp9ezu.html) is wrong, then congratulations, you are an actual advocate of free speech. > > Otherwise, you’re just emotionally reacting to the goring of your own ox Well that one is easy. It was a worthless excuse for a weak and spineless action from a politically compromised employer. The state government made a very bad decision supporting the ‘Safe Schools’ program, but they went in with their eyes open. Her continuing existence was an embarrassment to both the University and the Government. Suspending her for continuing to believe and advocate what she had always believed and advocated just indicated how morally bankrupt the University and State were. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/96 "2019-06-28T12:08:38Z")
I will say that creating my little test was an interesting exercise for me - because my own automatic reaction is to be in favour of one and not the other, except the other way round from the ACL. But really, it’s fundamentally the same, just from opposing ends of politics - it’s someone putting out a public opinion that lots of their fellow-citizens are going to find offensive and hurtful, and which their employer doesn’t really want to be publicly associated with. I think “reverse the politics” is often a useful game to play, if you want to figure out where your emotions on a subject are really coming from. If I ran the world, then probably nobody would ever get the sack for saying offensive things on Twitter. But on the other hand, I’m not that worked up about it when people do get the sack for saying offensive things on twitter, because I feel like it’s pretty easy for someone with a normal-sized ego to not do that, and the results are generally more-or-less predictable ---
**Author:** ![Treppenwitz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treppenwitz/32/3445_2.png) [@Treppenwitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treppenwitz)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/97 "2019-06-28T12:33:33Z")
More fuel for the fire: here’s an [update](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21722392). The lowlight of this being: > [@](#): > > After the first GoFundMe page set up to help the former player cover the costs of Folau’s legal action was shut down, a second raised more than two million Australian dollars (£1.1m) in just two days. j ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/98 "2019-06-28T12:38:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Oh, “again” is it? Did you notice I didn’t actually say anything JAQing is a common weaseling technique that allows the JAQer the out of “oh I didn’t actually say X! I was just asking…” > [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe you should address what I actually asked Let me check. Yup, we’re still in GD. This isn’t a quiz show. If you make an actual argument then I will address it. You have failed to do so. Nobody can stop you from JAQing off here but nobody has to play along either. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/99 "2019-06-28T12:42:38Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > I will say that creating my little test was an interesting exercise for me - because my own automatic reaction is to be in favour of one and not the other, except the other way round from the ACL. But really, it’s fundamentally the same, just from opposing ends of politics - it’s someone putting out a public opinion that lots of their fellow-citizens are going to find offensive and hurtful, and which their employer doesn’t really want to be publicly associated with. I think “reverse the politics” is often a useful game to play, if you want to figure out where your emotions on a subject are really coming from. > > If I ran the world, then probably nobody would ever get the sack for saying offensive things on Twitter. But on the other hand, I’m not that worked up about it when people do get the sack for saying offensive things on twitter, because I feel like it’s pretty easy for someone with a normal-sized ego to not do that, and the results are generally more-or-less predictable I still don’t like the idea of businesses poking their noses into what non-public-face employees do on their own time. But not necessarily to the “there should be a law” level. Although we see situations here where, say, an employee at a private religious school will be fired for being a single parent. Seems pretty shitty to me. That’s not speech though. ---
**Author:** ![nelamm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/aeb1de/32.png) [@nelamm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelamm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954/100 "2019-06-28T12:56:19Z")
So let’s have two theoretical and one non-theoretical cases for all those professing the “tolerant” position here: -Barring any laws, the rugby league tells any gay players they should keep their mouths shut about their orientation (might hurt business in a field like that) or they risk being fired. Their right? -The NFL tells its players that if they don’t stand for the national anthem, they risk being fired. (Again, might hurt business in a field like that.) Their right? -Hollywood in the 1950’s refuses to hire known Communists or Communist sympathizers. Might hurt business, and in any event they don’t approve. Their right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-folau-freedom-of-speech-and-employer-rights/835954.md?page=6)