Which Constitution?
Sorry, I’m in the US. So I mean the US Constitution.
Well, I’m a Canadian in a thread about an Australian. So all the whacky stuff Americans decided needed listed as rights doesn’t really have much to do with anything.
That’s a good point. From this point on, I expect no Canadians or Australians to comment on what we should be doing/not be doing in America. Deal?
Uh, no. I didn’t say anything about you not being allowed to comment.
Well, when you say this “How much of an effect do you thnk(sic) it would have on your life if Holocaust denial was outlawed in America” you are bringing America into it.
I was giving my perspective as an American.
Ok, how much would anyone’s life at all be affected by Holocaust denial being outlawed? Is Holocaust denial a net positive for America? I was answering someone lamenting that the rest of the world isn’t more like America, I didn’t bring it up.
Well, personally, I’m not affected by that specifically. But actual people who survived the Holocaust might be affected, so I’m concerned about them.
In addition, the denial of free speech goes against everything I believe in as an American, so I’m against government restrictions of speech.
Not following you here. If Holocaust denial was outlawed, you’d have concern for Survivors? Or I guess you’re saying you can understand a good reason to outlaw it even if you would never want that?
No. I think I was pretty clear. People affected by the Holocaust might have a different opinion than me. And I would be concerned about what they thought. Since they survived the Holocaust.
“Concerned” is just kind of a weird word there. It implies some worry that I can’t imagine. Do you mean you’d be interested in their opinion? Would defer to their opinion?
Of course I’d be interested in their opinion.
Quite a bit.
OK, some of you folk are getting right off topic.
The Folau case does not involve government censorship in any way, shape or form. It is a private entity, Rugby Australia, who have applied sanctions against Folau.
If you want to talk about censorship or free speech in general, can you take it to another thread please?
And Folau will not argue free speech or freedom of religion in his court case. He will argue that under the terms of his contract he did nothing for which the ARU could terminate his contract. People seem to believe that Folau’s contract contained a clause restricting what he could say on social media.
Folau has stated that there was no such specific clause in his contract. The ARU only stated that:
*Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union made the decision to pursue the termination of Israel Folau’s contract because of a serious breach of the Professional Players Code of Conduct.
This is an issue of an employee and his obligations to his employers within the contract that he signed. He was bound by a Code of Conduct for all professional players in Australia that spells out clear guidelines and obligations regarding player behaviour, including respectful use of social media.*
What the Code of Conduct says about the use of social media is:
*Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit.*
Amongst things like:
Be a good sport, displaying modesty in victory and graciousness in defeat.
and
Do not repeatedly breach the Laws of the Game relating to Foul Play or Misconduct (as those terms are defined in World Rugby Regulations).
So, while I think under the circumstances the ARU are within their rights to sack him, I believe his legal team will argue that the Code of Conduct provides only a vague, aspirational guide rather than any certainty. Folau believes, much like the Inquisition, that he is offering sinners the chance to repent and avoid an eternity in hell, which can hardly be seen as adversely reflecting on him. So somewhere way down the track, it may get very interesting.
Did you actually look at the the Code of Conduct? Because that was an odd selection of what was “amongst” the rules when they include this:
“Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.”
and
“Do not […] make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.”
Not vague aspirational – it’s a rather obvious morals clause.
You asked specifically how abridging this speech would affect one poster who wants to protect those rights. Again, if you think that’s relevant, by all means let us know how.
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.
I’m looking forward to controlled fusion doing exactly that, but you’re still ridiculously off-base with your “censorship” claims.
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 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