The Israel Folau saga

[Derpus]

This thread is a great example of why I gave up on social media pretty much, most here including the mods speak (post) and will only agree with the echos.

I actually think this thread is pretty evenly divided down the middle and there has been some fairly constructive debate. In any discussion when religion gets involved this tend to turn to shit.

 

[Lorenzo]

He has been sacked for what he said in an instagram post.
As Raelene so eloquently put it:
"It is certainly not ideal," she said. "But Mr Folau knew when he pressed that button there were the implications that post was going to have."
I reckon that being dismissed for what he said in a post is most certainly a denial of free speech.

It really isn't. I know this, because he hasn't been arrested.

 

[Gnostic]

Don't say/post that or you lose $4M..... there's some denial right there. If you can't see that you are wilfully blind or abjectly stupid.

 

[Sully]

He has been sacked for what he said in an instagram post.
As Raelene so eloquently put it:
"It is certainly not ideal," she said. "But Mr Folau knew when he pressed that button there were the implications that post was going to have."
I reckon that being dismissed for what he said in a post is most certainly a denial of free speech.

He was sacked for breaking his contract. A contract where he signd away his right to free speach for money.

 

[Athilnaur]

Again: point out where - at any point - Folau's right to free speech has been denied.

As has been stated many, many times in this long thread, it isn't free speech if it isn't allowed. It can be logically argued that some free speech must be curbed, even stopped because it impacts on others rights, but to claim it wasn't free speech denied is nothing short of Orwellian.

 

[Derpus]

Don't say/post that or you lose $4M... there's some denial right there. If you can't see that you are wilfully blind or abjectly stupid.

Typically, you are only guaranteed freedom from persecution where free speech is invoked. That persecution being from the state. Other people are free to react to your words however they like (within the law). As the law currently stands, political communication of the type Izzy participated in is not proteceted.

That said, we have no right to free speech in Australia anyway. It's really a moot point. Maybe we should have one? probably. I guess it's never been a major issue.

 

[Lorenzo]

he was paid $1m a year for his marketing prowess. As you ably highlight, he wasn't worth 1m a year as a fullback.

When he screwed his marketing potential, he had to go. Its all very simple, really, and any principles of 'free speech' are no more relevant than dividing fences legislation.

 

[formerflanker]

It really isn't. I know this, because he hasn't been arrested.

You are right.
The State has not denied him free speech.
A sporting organisation did it.

I'm still astounded that sporting administrators can stifle free speech by sacking a player for having a dissenting view.

 

[Derpus]

he was paid $1m a year for his marketing prowess. As you ably highlight, he wasn't worth 1m a year as a fullback.

When he screwed his marketing potential, he had to go. Its all very simple, really, and any principles of 'free speech' are no more relevant than dividing fences legislation.

Please don't mention this heinous piece of legislation.

 

[Lorenzo]

As has been stated many, many times in this long thread, it isn't free speech if it isn't allowed. It can be logically argued that some free speech must be curbed, even stopped because it impacts on others rights, but to claim it wasn't free speech denied is nothing short of Orwellian.

Only if you don't understand what 'free speech' actually means. It doesn't mean that you can say whatever you like without any consequences whatsoever.

 

[Derpus]

You are right.
The State has not denied him free speech.
A sporting organisation did it.

I'm still astounded that sporting administrators can stifle free speech by sacking a player for having a dissenting view.

It's because they can't. He said the thing and they, as an individual legal entity, decided to end a legal contract with him as a result.

He's free to believe and say what he wants but we are all free to react to him how we want.

 

[Gnostic]

I'm going to guess you're not a young, vulnerable gay person

And how is that important? We all get confronted by things we find offensive and throughout life, at sometimes more than offensive, downright life threatening. If we cannot deal with the realities of life and the FACT that there are arseholes in the world who we will meet and have to work with we will have an unhappy existance. How about we strive to be truly tolerant of others, or failing that we be resilient in ourselves and just say F^%$#$-Off knob head and move on.​

 

[Lorenzo]

No one has stifled his free speech.

I know this, because the post is still up, and he remains a free man.

 

[Samson]

he was paid $1m a year for his marketing prowess. As you ably highlight, he wasn't worth 1m a year as a fullback.



When he screwed his marketing potential, he had to go. Its all very simple, really, and any principles of 'free speech' are no more relevant than dividing fences legislation.

If you yell threats or obscenities over the fence you may learn of it's relevance.

 

[Strewthcobber]

You are right.
The State has not denied him free speech.
A sporting organisation did it.

I'm still astounded that sporting administrators can stifle free speech by sacking a player for having a dissenting view.

It's not for having a dissenting view, it's because he was

threatening the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer's business.

-FAIR WORK REGULATIONS 2009 - REG 1.07

 

[Athilnaur]

He was sacked for breaking his contract. A contract where he signd away his right to free speach for money.

Sully if this were true it would have been a lot shorter discussion. There's no clause proscribing his soocial media use, just a generic conduct provision. As I understand it RA would not have been able to due to an agreement with RUPA about no additional causes being deleterious.

It can be argued it was covered by the general conduct clause though. But for my money RA would never have got him to agree to a more restrictive contract in 2019.

Nick Farr Jones after speaking with Israel:

 

[Kenny Powers]

When professional rugby players contract with Rugby Australia, do they contract as a bog standard PAYG employee or do they contract thru a company or trust? Does anyone know?

If they contract thru a trust or a company wouldn’t that render Fairwork and other employer/employer laws, regulations etc irrelevant?

 

[Derpus]

When professional rugby players contract with Rugby Australia, do they contract as a bog standard PAYG employee or do they contract thru a company or trust? Does anyone know?

If they contract thru a trust or a company wouldn’t that render Fairwork and other employer/employer laws, regulations etc irrelevant?

I don't know. But, that sounds rather odd. Why would they contract through a corporation?

 

[Adam84]

How about we strive to be truly tolerant of others

Yet It was intolerance which caused this whole thing to start with

 

[Gnostic]

Typically, you are only guaranteed freedom from persecution where free speech is invoked. That persecution being from the state. Other people are free to react to your words however they like (within the law). As the law currently stands, political communication of the type Izzy participated in is not proteceted.



That said, we have no right to free speech in Australia anyway. It's really a moot point. Maybe we should have one? probably. I guess it's never been a major issue.

It is actually religious communication.

And your second point is moot, Free speech is just that, if something (speech) is not proscribed by law it is free. Folau broke no laws. Only by the fevered dreams of some zealots and those who like to be virtuous can what he said be construed as hate speech, however it did not call for any deleterious actions, it made no incitements, defamed no person or organisation. Yet we have a situation where an employee has been sacked for something that is not an offence, and is secondly a commonly held belief in an orthodox mainstream church.

AND it is highly amusing that only the homosexual portion of this particular post has received any outrage, where is the angst for the drunkards, fornicators, adulterers etc.

I am not a church goer, I don't like them at all nor am I a great fan of Folau, it is the ethics of the situation that pose the problem for me.

No lets retain a drunk, some drug users, drink drivers and domestic violence abusers, but FFS we can't have somebody posting shit on that miraculous twitter thingy that could offend some poor dear. The same people happy to condemn Folau are also those happy to retain these others in many cases and that is totally laughable, we have on one hand criminal offending in some cases with actual victims of actual crimes, against a situation of the potential of hurt feelings.

Really the truth is a bit less palatable, it is just about money and a single CEO. Just like Weapons of Mass Destruction that never existed, lets not get caught up any further in debate over falsehoods and purported virtue, its just about money really.