Why? Was he threatening to send them to hell?
According to his own belief system he’d probably say the opposite, he was trying to warn people so they could be ‘saved’.
It’s an unpleasant and possibly hurtful thing to say, but not IMO a threat.
It’s not the same thing at all. A "hate speech exemption " is censorship, yelling fire in a crowded theater not being allowed is because of the direct physical threat it causes. And it’s not an exemption, because like I said, “free speech” isn’t spelled out as a rule in Australia, it is carved out from other freedoms and guarantees.
No threat is required. From the wiki on Hate Speech in Australia:
Some jurisdictions include sexual orientation.
As servant and (self appointed) spokesperson of someone who (as I understand it) has threatened to send them to hell, it appears to me that he was acting with a common purpose by delivering the threat.
Do we have an Australian lawyer in the house?
j
I don’t think we need a lawyer to see that as pretty ridiculous and regardless, I quoted text from the Australian law the post above yours which clearly doesn’t require a threat.
So insulting another person in the street is a crime in Australia? How about internet forums? Are Australians posting in the Pit risking arrest? Seems like a big infringement on free speech.
I am not an Australian lawyer so I don’t know how far this law has been tested but clearly just insulting someone is not prohibited, unless it’s a racist insult. Not sure how many Australians we have making racist insults in the Pit. And I already quoted a 2002 decision that held a Holocaust denial website in violation of the law.
A different wiki (so take both with a grain of salt) states that an exemption is made “fair comment that is an expression of genuine belief.” I don’t know what “fair comment” means in this context but it almost certainly seems like a genuine belief. Link.
Canada gives latitude for sincere religious expression too. I doubt this guy could reasonably be charged. I’m really just pushing back on the idea that all Western countries are basically the same on this. The US is an outlier in its free speech protection.
I wish more countries were like the US, then. I think the right to free speech is more important than the right not to be insulted or offended, whether it involves a few selected categories or not.
Be that as it may, it seems the athlete signed away his ability to make these kinds of comments while keeping his job with the team.
From reading just one article on this case, it’s clear that the clause in the contract was added to address exactly the sort of comments he was fired for. He’d have to be an idiot to not understand what he was signing. And once he freely signed away his ability to criticize homosexuality, well – he has to sleep in the bed he made. Civil rights have nothing to do with this.
How much of an effect do you thnk it would have on your life if Holocaust denial was outlawed in America?
I’m shocked and mildly disappointed that anyone would find this relevant.
Since it’s perfectly relevant, maybe you should recalibrate.
I was thinking more of this kind of thing:
Whether the abridgment of a right would have an effect on my life has no bearing on whether it should be protected. If you feel otherwise, by all means explain yourself.
Whoops, not modelling per se, but PROMOTING “A rugby tournament to tackle homophobia”.
Dated 2014, it seems that Folau was sincere in his anti-homophobe views then, yet has gone full-blown rabid in opposition in the five years since.
Fabulous haircut and colour back in 2014 though. 
Yeah, yeah rights are super awesome regardless of how they effect anyone’s life. :rolleyes:
It’s possible to believe in the rights protected by the Constitution even if they don’t affect you.