The Israel Folau saga

[Rebelsfan]

its a strange one isn't it?
I believe they're advocating for the same thing they're advocating against.

Free speech is about saying your mind. However, for an organisation there should only be one spokesperson to represent that organisation and other employees, usually are not allowed to make comments about the organisation. It's a bit complicated.

 

[Adam84]

Free speech is about saying your mind. However, for an organisation there should only be one spokesperson to represent that organisation and other employees, usually are not allowed to make comments about the organisation. It's a bit complicated.

So no other players or members within Rugby Australia should be allowed to publicly comment or express their own opinion on the Folau situation?

 

[Rebelsfan]

So no other players or members within Rugby Australia should be allowed to publicly comment or express their own opinion on the Folau situation?

correct

 

[Quick Hands]

But wouldn’t that be limiting “free speech”

No

 

[Quick Hands]

So no other players or members within Rugby Australia should be allowed to publicly comment or express their own opinion on the Folau situation?

While there are legal procedings underway, it's actually prudent to say nothing. But they are free to do so aren't they.

 

[Quick Hands]

Free speech is about saying your mind. However, for an organisation there should only be one spokesperson to represent that organisation and other employees, usually are not allowed to make comments about the organisation. It's a bit complicated.

That's why some of them are having problems understanding the concept.

 

[Adam84]

No Quick Hands I don't find this a complicated issue at all, it's really quite simple if you don't shift the boundaries of when free speech is acceptable and when it isn't.

Everyone is allowed to believe, think and say whatever they want, doesn't mean there wont be consequences for their actions. That goes for Folau, Cheika, Genia and whichever other player decided to speak out for or against Folaus comments.

 

[Athilnaur]

Consequences is an unhelpful term. The issue in play is criticism vs punishment. Can a person's free speech be criticised? Can it be punished?

The whole point of free speech is to be allowed to criticise. To call out the emperor with no clothes.

Punishing free speech is a very different matter. One of the first things totalitarian regimes ensure they do is to shut down free speech. This is not an accident. Such regimes have historically been acutely aware of the power of propaganda, and are very fast to ensure others can not use propaganda against them.

 

[wamberal]

As I have said before, everything that is stated of a religious nature could be anathema to at least one other religion.


Do we like the idea of religious wars being played out in public? There are lots of religious people in Australia who are not
Christians. What about them? Do they get equal rights?


I think the answer is, yes. Equal rights to respect other people who do not share your view. Izzy, that includes you.

 

[The Honey Badger]

You still don't get it do you QH. Izzy is absolutely entitled to post whatever he wants, and noone at RA is telling him different, what they saying he not entitled to get paid a million a year from them if he does. See everyone has rights, Izzy to post whatever divisive religious nonsense he wants, and RA to pay the said person a huge salary while they think he not helping tp enhance the sport.

Only problem is RA's position may be unlawful.

I think that's what it all boils down to.

 

[Quick Hands]

No Quick Hands I don't find this a complicated issue at all, it's really quite simple if you don't shift the boundaries of when free speech is acceptable and when it isn't.

Everyone is allowed to believe, think and say whatever they want, doesn't mean there wont be consequences for their actions. That goes for Folau, Cheika, Genia and whichever other player decided to speak out for or against Folaus comments.

I haven't shifted any goal posts, you've just decided for your own purposes to deliberately misrepresent what I observed.

It's not an infringement of free speech to say that the CEO and the Chairman are the authorised official spokespeople. I never implied that people should be punished for giving opinions. Merely that with legal procedings pending it would be prudent to limit the people officially authorised to comment.

And if you care to go back and read what I've said in the thread, I've never said that free speech wasn't without consequences or that free speech was absolute or that employers weren't entitled to discipline employees. In fact, quite to the contrary in one of my very first posts on this thread I said the following:

I think he's entitled to his views.

I don't agree with his interpretation of Christianity

I don't care what his views are on anything other than rugby.

I think he is extremely unwise to propogate his views on social media

I think RA are perfectly entitled to discipline him as they have previously asked him to refrain from making such posts and as the employer they have the right to certain expectations from their employees.

I think that there would be a significant group of professional rugby players who would have some sympathy with Folau and his Christian beliefs but would express themselves differently

Folau said before signing his last deal that he was happy to walk away from Australian rugby if his beliefs caused a problem. I assume that he sincerely holds the views expressed and as such the termination of his contract isn't the most important thing in his life.

There are no winners in this.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/rugby-social-media.18580/page-13#post-1058694

 

[Samson]

Folau said he was happy to walk after his first conflict. Since then , RA gave him a slap on the wrist and effectively said it is no big deal. A year later or there abouts Falou signed a contract without any restrictive clauses. As soon as he signed the contract RA asked to add clauses. Izzy rightfully declined. RA effectively said we want you more than we want our principles, we know you would not have signed with these clauses so we did not ask until you were locked away. I am not particularly an Izzy fan as any thing other than a good but not great footballer, but I do not want to see anyone thrown under a bus.

 

[Adam84]

I haven't shifted any goal posts, you've just decided for your own purposes to deliberately misrepresent what I observed.

My comment toward you was in reply to your subtle comment that “some” of us don’t understand complicated topics.

Rest of my comment was actually directed at what Rebelsfan posted and his comments about players not been able to voice their opinion on the issue. And based on your comments you seemingly agree with what I’ve said anyway, so it seems we agree and don’t need to continue this argument anymore.

 

[Adam84]

My remark in the direction of you was in reply in your diffused comment that “a few” of us don’t understand complex subjects.

relaxation of my remark turned into in reality directed at what Rebelsfan published and his feedback approximately gamers no longer been capable of voice their opinion on the issue. And based to your comments you seemingly believe what I’ve stated besides, so it seems we agree and don’t want to hold this argument anymore.

well said, shift F7

 

[Slim 293]

well said, shift F7

Going through some of the posts in this thread........ I can't be sure some of the other posters are not bots.

 

[sidelineview]

Going through some of the posts in this thread.... I can't be sure some of the other posters are not bots.

Bots?

 

[Set piece magic]

Going through some of the posts in this thread.... I can't be sure some of the other posters are not bots.

I'd say exactly the same to you sir

 

[Slim 293]

I'd say exactly the same to you sir

 

[Quick Hands]

My comment toward you was in reply to your subtle comment that “some” of us don’t understand complicated topics.

Rest of my comment was actually directed at what Rebelsfan posted and his comments about players not been able to voice their opinion on the issue. And based on your comments you seemingly agree with what I’ve said anyway, so it seems we agree and don’t need to continue this argument anymore.

My remark in the direction of you was in reply in your diffused comment that “a few” of us don’t understand complex subjects.

relaxation of my remark turned into in reality directed at what Rebelsfan published and his feedback approximately gamers no longer been capable of voice their opinion on the issue. And based to your comments you seemingly believe what I’ve stated besides, so it seems we agree and don’t want to hold this argument anymore.

You must be a super hero and have a secret identity.

Or have multiple pesonality disorder.

Anyway, I'm glad you both agree with me.

 

[liquor box]

KHunt very lucky, but I suppose the charges being dropped helped.....

JOC (James O'Connor) was booted out.... had two years overseas.

Beale has a code of conduct hearing, which he survived.....

Slipper only had one transgression.....

I don’t remember what Ioane did?

Beale also was caught drink driving, alleged to have assaulted his cousin at a party, pissed outside a pub, had a fight with QC (Quade Cooper) and James O'Connor in France, reached an out of court settlement in relation to assaulting a bouncer at the Victory Hotel, got in a fight with Cooper Vuna and was sent home from South Africa, breached an alcohol ban at the Rebels, the incident with Link had issues on last spring tour with AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and photos of being present when cocaine was being snorted on social media.

For some reason he is seen as a role model and seems to have a teflon skin.