Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
User avatar
By Charles Hunt
#1688145
A couple of rugby players seem to be in trouble for espousing biblical views which presumably they grew up with. Freedom of speech?
User avatar
By OCB
#1688150
Charles Hunt wrote:A couple of rugby players seem to be in trouble for espousing biblical views which presumably they grew up with. Freedom of speech?


I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about - I’m not a rugby fan. :oops:
By riverrock
#1688168
I'm pretty worried about stifling the rugby players comments. They are sincerely held views with clear religious backing which in at least one of the cases are carefully explained and don't victimise individuals. They have a right to those views at least in the UK (freedom of expression and right not to be discriminated against because of their religion). Employers shouldn't have the right to influence those views unless those people are representing their employers at the time, but both of these are personal twitter accounts.

On the terrorism legislation, law essentially says you commit an offence if you intentionally view terrorist material, yet aren't a journalist or acedemic. I guess the question is why would you be looking, and should youvhave the right to look?
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1688177
OCB wrote:
Charles Hunt wrote:A couple of rugby players seem to be in trouble for espousing biblical views which presumably they grew up with. Freedom of speech?


I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about - I’m not a rugby fan. :oops:


https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/rugby/hell-awaits-you-israel-folau-makes-more-controversial-posts-targeting-drunks-homosexuals-fornicators-and
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1688179
riverrock wrote:They are sincerely held views with clear religious backing which in at least one of the cases are carefully explained and don't victimise individuals.

Dangerous ground, rr, when one starts using religion as a justification for behaviour. :wink:

riverrock wrote:They have a right to those views at least in the UK (freedom of expression and right not to be discriminated against because of their religion).

Absolutely agree, equally others have the right not to be discriminated against as a consequence of a n other's religion. :D

As for intentionally viewing terrorist material being an offence, it's ridiculous as written, but then I struggle to take it literally.
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1688207
Ok, putting my sensible head back on, the new law in @OCB 's OP it's the terrorism (match) precursor to the real meat of introducing thought crime; the Online Harms proposal that criminalises everything from murder threats to hurting somebody's feelings.

AIUI they aren't going to determine what is wrong, just that something might be wrong, and the platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flyer Forum) will be responsible for finding, deciding, and eliminating, not just as a company but also the people who run them.

In essence, the government is planning to outsource the policing of thought crime on pain of prosecution of platform executives.

Moderation won't be moderate, it will be official Doublespeak.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688468
riverrock wrote:I'm pretty worried about stifling the rugby players comments. They are sincerely held views with clear religious backing which in at least one of the cases are carefully explained and don't victimise individuals. They have a right to those views at least in the UK (freedom of expression and right not to be discriminated against because of their religion). Employers shouldn't have the right to influence those views unless those people are representing their employers at the time, but both of these are personal twitter accounts.


The Oz Rugby authorities saw that a bit different, he has been sacked.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47932231

Having those views is one thing; publishing them quite another.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1688481
There was a guest on “Frankie Boyle’s New World Order” the other week who was suggesting that whenever she debated racism, that she had to debate it against an opposing view, as though that opposing view was a legitimate standpoint to make.

She suggested that this would not be the case discussing rape, a a pro-rape stance is not a legitimate view to hold or espouse.

Is this thread about similar things - views that are not legitimate, or that are becoming not legitimate or that some would like to be not legitimate views to hold?
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1688483
PaulB wrote:Is this thread about similar things - views that are not legitimate, or that are becoming not legitimate or that some would like to be not legitimate views to hold?

What worries me in this thread is the suggestion it is a legitimate view since it is one supported by religion. IMO that is not a legitimate view, indeed it's a worrying view. :shock:
PaulB liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1688508
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

It's certainly a legitimate view to the rugby player, and no amount of opprobrium is likely to change his antediluvian views. I'm not sure that vindictively sacking him achieves anything useful except making a few equally intolerant folk feel better about themselves. Like the rest of us he's a product of his circumstances and his education by the various channels that we all encounter throughout our lives. New channels with new ideas might change his views and if he doesn't plenty of other observers will, so that's a score draw at worst.

People really need to decide for themselves that something is different. I can remember the exact moment that I realised that God was a ridiculous concept while, in a school Christian Union session one lunchtime. All that extra religious knowledge actually opened the door to ideas that were previously unseen because gods were standing in the way, and made me appreciate that there's more than one "right" for virtually anything (except that Cessnas are better than Pipers and that Sheffield Wednesday will rise again).

The first thing that a future totalitarian regime does is to control what people can say, so that they can then control what people learn, and then what people think. Once you have enough people on board the rest comes together very easily, along with the oppression, extra judicial punishment, torture, gulags, murder, and the rest.

This weekend we've had David Lammy shouting "NAZI" and "HITLER" at people to the left of Thatcher. It belittles him but when enough people share those ridiculous view (as in share, not necessarily believe) it starts to close down another element of speech, builds resentment, but definitely doesn't stop people believing anything or build any common ground.

This isn't new. After WW2, Orwell (we are not worthy) said something along the lines of 'We must stop calling our opponents Nazis, we've just fought a war against actual Nazis'. While people were calling each other Nazis they took their eye off the actual dangers of rising communism.

Here's looking at you David Lammy.

DarrenL liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688526
@eltonioni

He can say it - but he should not be surprised to get sacked over it. Nor should he be surprised should his access to social media be curtailed.

Freedom of speech is not the same as right to broadcast and expecting not to be held accountable for that what was uttered on social media.
AlanC liked this
User avatar
By PaulB
#1688527
eltonioni wrote:This weekend we've had David Lammy shouting "NAZI" and "HITLER" at people to the left of Thatcher.


I saw the Marr interview - he was the least shouty that I've seen him for a while.
eltonioni, Pete L liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7