frees speech, hate speech or a comedy routine?

[brewer]

That was the club's argument also. Some agree, but some argue that the company does not have the right to infringe on his free speech irrespective of contract.
If he has said something nice, all is good. Who decides what is morally correct? The company paying him to play football? Are they qualified to make that decision?

The courts, at least in the US, disagree.

This is not about morals. The employer gets to decide what their brand will represent to the public. 

Apparently he was terminated because he appears to have violated Code of Conduct provisions: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...rael_Folau

Choices have consequences. We'll have to wait to see how the AU courts rule in this particular case.

[ignoramus]

So what's the consensus everyone?

Is "You gays are truly ruly gonna burn in hell for being fabulous" insulting? Does it warrant any backlash?
Or should his club who sacked him and cancelled his multimillion dollar contract just pat have him on the head and said: That's nice, now when you're finished, please go and kick some more goals for us.

For TGN, just my opinion of course, but the left has already taken hold of production by paying everyone to NOT work. We are in for a dark decade ahead of 70's style stagflation.
And the virus had nothing to do with this. The US economy and govt debt was already screwed .

Yall are getting paid not to work?  Lucky.  

The club that payed him, and very likely had a representation clause in his contract, gets to decide whether he goes back out with their jersey on and kicks goals for them for money.  Speech may be protected, and the government hasn't thrown him in the clink for being shitty....but it's unlikely that there's any right to play for and get paid by a particular club.

If the worst that we can summon up when we consider the tyranny of the radical left is that assholes who poorly represent a business get fired by that business...............?

As for 70's style stagflation, I'm unconcerned about that, though we're in for economic hardship all the same..just a continuation of the norm for these past couple of decades.  The american public isn't sitting on excess liquidity, and wouldn't be sitting on excess liquidity at $15hr, either.  It's amazing to me that people can be made to believe that the poorest people, already getting so little of the pie that they're a statistical non-entity in terms of money despite their numbers as a population, are imagined to be some engine of economic destruction if they got a marginally higher but still insignificant piece of the same pie.  

1 out of 100 people are consuming the entire pie...and castigating the poors while they do it for how there won't be any pie for the other poors unless they accept a lower share of the crumbs left in the tin.  They can go fuck themselves.  Some people think we should tax the rich, I think we should eat them.

Agree. But if we eat the 1%, then tens of millions will also starve who rely on the 1% for a shitty job. Isn't this the end game for democracy? Isn't the rule of the game to be the last big fish standing? He with the most money wins? How do you picture the US democracy in 5-10 years... It looks a bit scary ...could go any way...

[The Grand Nudger]

You've got the order of reliance entirely backwards, I think. As to the endgame for us democracy, not even remotely - the endgame for a us oligarchy that would very much like to replace us democracy, sure.

Ask them politely to do their part, they tell us to go fuck ourselves.
Compel them by law to pay their taxes, they tell us to go fuck ourselves.
Suggest that their exceedingly narrow interests aren't a legitimate basis for a democratic government, they wink..and tell us to go fuck ourselves again.

Eat the rich, because fuck them is why, we can have a grace period, ofc. Fatten them up on the cat food they'll be forced to eat while they decide which side of this line they want to be on. That's what I see happening. Even though the rich have very successfully turned half of the us voting public against itself, you can only be hit in the face so many times with your own arm before you realize that the guy blaming the hated other is full of shit. A seething contempt for economic inequality, real and imagined.... crosses the political aisle right now, even through all of the noise. Whether that's the general lib worry about about demonstrable issues, or the republican bases paranoid delusion of the blacks and browns somehow getting more than them.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I don't believe in the concept of hate speech. Hateful speech is bad, but I don't think 'hate speech' should be a thing. You could actually call it love speech as the rugby player loves these people so much that he wants them to repent and see the error in their ways.

I don't think it's wrong to suspend or release that player. Having religious beliefs is one thing and it's perfectly fine, but posting something that in your face is just asking to get in trouble.

I didn't see an attempt at comedy by the rugby player. Maybe I just missed that part, but I just saw a facebook post by him that looked completely serious. When it does come to comedy however, nothing is off the table imo. Anything goes. I'm bisexual myself and I have a good laugh when Steven Crowder makes fun of the lispy queer from Vox. The guy from Vox said he identifies as a lispy queer, so Crowder is just using the exact words the man uses to describe himself, and Crowder is making fun more of the lispyness than the homosexuality of the man. The self proclaimed lispy queer was trying to take down other channels on youtube, and that's why he was really targeted with these jokes. Not because he's gay.

It all depends on the individual and what kind of comedy you can stomach. If a certain comedian goes too far for you, quit watching them. It's as simple as that. Below is a video of classic Opie and Anthony, playing the Jonestown tapes, and laughing and making jokes while in the background you can hear the cries of the children who drank the coolaid or are being forced by their parents to drink the coolaid. A lot of people I'm sure couldn't handle this type of comedy, but I can, so I watch/ listen.

---

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, you could call hate speech love speech, because words, what are they, even?

The prospect of being able to solve the greater part of the confusion over these issues by a little remedial vocabulary is interesting, but, I think..highly unlikely. It's not on account of not understanding what words mean that you hold the position that you do.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Where is the hate though? Literally, where is it? If he had said "you're all going to hell and I'm glad", that could be considered hateful speech. Trying to save people and throw them a life saver is not hateful, though. Sounds to me like he hates the sin and not the sinner. You know how offended I am that he said atheists need to repent or go to hell? I'd be less than zero percent offended if that were possible. Why would I let that that bother me at all?

Hateful speech does exist of course. People who can't wait to see others go to hell are hateful, I would say. Hate speech though? Nah. That's not grammatically correct. I call speech like that hateful speech, not hate speech.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you cant see hate where hate exists, you may simply be hateful. If you can't understand offense, you're likely to be offensive.

I'll suggest, again, that no explanation of why you hold the position that you do boils down to not understanding words...and it probably cheapens you while misrepresenting your position to insist as much.