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 eltonioni
#1688534
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@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.

That's not quite what I said. He may well be sacked (I would) but that should be for a breach of some well founded policy, such as bringing the organisation into disrepute, not as virtue signalling. One might give cause to rethink whereas the other will build resentment.

Bear in mind that our opinions about what he said don't much matter here, what's important is how that impacts in real terms. Has anyone actually been harmed in real terms? I doubt it. Being automatically offended because of some principle falls into the "so what?" category for me. Surely it is much better if an individual or group is handled in a sensitive way that moves the world on a bit?


Flyin'Dutch' wrote: 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.
I'm not so sure. I like to know who is saying what, and to whom, especially if it doesn't move the world on a bit. It's understandable if some people would rather pretend it isn't there, but it doesn't solve anything if we all do.

As for being accountable, see up. Driving something out of sight removes accountability. For example, anti-Semites were always there, and now we can see them, form an opinion, and do something about it, starting with education.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688552
@Nomad63

This was in Oz............and the 'offendees' his employer, I have no idea about their sizes.

Do you?

:roll:
Nomad63 liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688554
@eltonioni From what is out in the public domain it transpires that he has 'previous' and was told what wasn't acceptable on social media, if after that previous event he continued to spout stuff on social media then being sacked for being unable to be educated seems appropriate.

It may be difficult to identify people who are personally harmed, however Oz Rugby decided that they don't want to be seen as homophobic and rather as all inclusive.

The suggestion that going against these folks may cause the problem go 'underground' may seem attractive and a reason for letting it go unremarked, I think however that it is important that unacceptable behaviour is classed as that.

Die-hards may persist in their behaviour but most kling-ons will have a little think and modify theirs.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1688566
I'm not sure why homosexuals are singled out. The original tweet or whatever it was condemned:

Drunks, Homosexuals Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters.

I'd have thought the rugby crowd would have been more up in arms about drunks.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688569
:roll:
User avatar
By Pete L
#1688572
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@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.


I think I disagree.

We rightly have limitations on freedom of speech for incitement to illegal action, not for expressing one's dislike of something.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688576
There is no compulsion for organisations to keep on folks who bring the club in disrepute and neither is there a compulsion for social media to allow people to broadcast matters that the social media do not want to be broadcast via their medium.

Standing on speaker's corner - fill your boots as long as it is not incitement.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688594
Sportstar twittering on their social media account with several thousands of followers is not private life.

Sorry peeps but all of this has already been done to death in several court cases in many jurisdictions.
JoeC, AlanC liked this
By Nomad63
#1688596
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@Nomad63

This was in Oz............and the 'offendees' his employer, I have no idea about their sizes.

Do you?

:roll:


Yep and its even worse here.
Oh and I'm not necessarily referring to physical size
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1688599
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I'm not sure why homosexuals are singled out. The original tweet or whatever it was condemned:

Drunks, Homosexuals Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters.

I'd have thought the rugby crowd would have been more up in arms about drunks.


Damned idolaters, with their evil clay cow models and such.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7