Freedom of speech does not mean speech free from consequences

Folau fired by Rugby Australia for contentious online posts

Rugby Australia terminated the contract of Israel Folau, apparently one of the league's stars, for violating the players' code of conduct. I haven't seen the exact words, but he posted something on social media condemning people who are gay and other "sinners" to eternal damnation. When told to take it down, he refused.

Of course, this has brought on a discussion of freedom of speech and claims by his defenders that he is being punished for his beliefs. People have a right to their opinions without government interference, but that doesn't mean that speech doesn't have consequences.

Thoughts?

 

Is Rugby Australia a part of the government or receive government funding?

That said, representing your country in international sports is a privilege, not a right.

 

I honestly don't know much about Rugby Australia. I also don't know what the law is there or plenty of other things that probably relate. I just thought it was an interesting discussion.

 

Rugby Australia is incorporated as a private company. It does receive a small amount of government grants, but those are dwarfed by broadcasting, matchday, and sponsorship revenues.

As for Folau, it sounds like he ignored several repeated requests from his employers and rugby governing bodies to take down social media posts, show any remorse, and/or ease off on the condemnation of "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters" and so on. RA has gone to great pains to portray this as an employment matter driven by Folau's violation of the player code of conduct in his contract. Odds are good that Folau will appeal on the basis of Christian persecution -- providing ample fodder for another Pure Flix special -- but even that isn't a sure thing. He plays club rugby for the New South Wales Waratahs, and NSW law has no protections against discrimination on the basis of religion.

Regardless, Folau will land on his feet. If an appeal doesn't go his way, he could stay in the SANZAR ecosystem with a move to a South African Super Rugby club or make a big-money move to Japan. Not having any obligations with the Wallabies opens up several avenues for him.

 

The Instagram post in question can be found inside this link

https://gayexpress.co.nz/2019/04/israel-folau-resumes-anti-gay-social-media-posts/

Rugby Australia has a right to do what it pleases on this until a court of law in Australia says otherwise.

It’s regrettable all around.

 

If his faith is actually real, then maybe he really was just spreading the word. What he wrote is still ugly and unacceptable. If they had just kicked him out for the comments, I might say Rugby Australia was in the wrong despite my disdain for what he was posting. But he was asked and/or told many times to remove it and knock it off, but refused. At that point, it's about refusing to follow a directive from his employer.

 

No faith is real, that’s why it’s called faith. He just holds an opinion common to a group of people who are trying to minimize the humanity of others in order to make themselves feel superior.

 

I meant real in the sense that he genuinely believes it. Your cynical and inaccurate view of faith is duly noted.

To be clear, I don't doubt that your view of many people who claim to be religious is accurate. What I'm disagreeing with is your suggestion that all people with strong faith are trying to minimize others for their own superiority. Now if you want to suggest those who "spread the word" are really just trying to prop themselves up, I could understand the argument. The problem with that people with a strong faith are influenced by what they are taught. I don't doubt for a second that some people who preach do so because they genuinely believe that is what G-d wants from them. In those cases, it's not coming from a bad place, though certainly it can have a negative impact on others.

I'm inclined to believe your characterization does fit Folau, but I don't know enough about the guy to be sure.

 

When the words “freedom of speech” were penned in ink, it probably took about 30-60 seconds to properly write and dry.

It probably took weeks until more than 1,000 people actually read it, so the statement had time to be thought about.

Now, someone can type something in five seconds and millions can see it in under a minute. Possibly, billions can see it in 24 hours.

Just like the Second Amendment needs adjusted for modern technology, so does the First Amendment.

 

And yet, it takes moments to just say something out loud. Do we need to change protections on that too?

 

It’s about the size of the audience.

 

It’s the difference between farting in public and taking a dump in public.