Things that piss you off...

Christchurch Rangers
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post imgres

coochiee wrote:

paulm wrote:

What is the definition of hate speech? Is there a legal one? 

I always get frustrated arguing specific examples of what is or isn't hate speech, when it's such a subjective thing.

It generally always leads to "well if you haven't been oppressed by this particular thing then you don't know what it's like, so you're not allowed an opinion".

Does there need to be a legal definition?

Let’s say I’m gay. Israel Folau says I should go to hell. Sounds a bit hateful to me.

If you tell a nazi to go to hell is that hate speech? Or is some hate speech ok?

And if some hate speech is considered ok and some isn't then that means the whole concept of hate speech is subjective rather than based on absolute laws. Dodgy as.

This isn't about freedom of speech really this is about one set of people trying to enforce their values onto others imo

Christchurch Rangers
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post imgres

Tegal wrote:

So him saying gays should burn in hell is ok. But people reacting negatively to that view is ridiculous? 

He is “100% free to portray his belief” but when people react and portray their belief that he’s wrong, they’re being ridiculous? 

My understanding is he didn't say they should burn in hell he said that according to the bible that is where gay people are going to go when they die. I don't follow his social media account so please correct me if I am wrong.

Saying someone "should burn in hell" is quite different to saying someone is going to "end up in hell according to what the bible preaches". 

One is a direct person to person comment the other is someone outlining what they think will happen according to what they believe to be true. ie one is an active and one is a passive comment. Again big difference.

I believe what he said was a passive reference to what he thinks will happen according to how he interprets the bible and I don't have a problem with that.

Why? Because I don't believe in any christian god for starters and concepts like heaven and hell mean nothing to me, If israel thinks someone is being sent to a place which I don't even believe exists then big deal.

And even if he did say gays should burn in hell, big deal, let him have his opinion. Or are people so thin skinned these days that they cannot tolerate any opinion that falls outside of their "safe space"?  If you are hurt by other peoples opinions on social media then I really think you need to get a grip.

Move on, nothing to see here!

coochiee
First Team Squad
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post aonc cover

typical Australians let him off lightly as well. Play on son, no worries

Says something about that bigoted country

It’s more he is the highest profile rugby player in Australia, a genuine crowd puller and no doubt on very big money.

As the ARU boss Raelene Casle (a Kiwi) has said, this drama is the biggest challenge of her career in sports admin.

Given she previously worked in NRL, and all shenanigans those players get up to, that’s saying something.

Hopefully he stops his tweets. Rugby struggling in Australia, and ARU can’t afford this to drag on. Must be ‘a bringing the game into disrepute’ clause in his contract. I’m sure the ARU have their lawyers looking at it.

theprof
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post arsenal

Tegal wrote:

So him saying gays should burn in hell is ok. But people reacting negatively to that view is ridiculous? 

He is “100% free to portray his belief” but when people react and portray their belief that he’s wrong, they’re being ridiculous? 

My understanding is he didn't say they should burn in hell he said that according to the bible that is where gay people are going to go when they die. I don't follow his social media account so please correct me if I am wrong.

Saying someone "should burn in hell" is quite different to saying someone is going to "end up in hell according to what the bible preaches". 

One is a direct person to person comment the other is someone outlining what they think will happen according to what they believe to be true. ie one is an active and one is a passive comment. Again big difference.

I believe what he said was a passive reference to what he thinks will happen according to how he interprets the bible and I don't have a problem with that.

Why? Because I don't believe in any christian god for starters and concepts like heaven and hell mean nothing to me, If israel thinks someone is being sent to a place which I don't even believe exists then big deal.

And even if he did say gays should burn in hell, big deal, let him have his opinion. Or are people so thin skinned these days that they cannot tolerate any opinion that falls outside of their "safe space"?  If you are hurt by other peoples opinions on social media then I really think you need to get a grip.

Move on, nothing to see here!

you are correct, his comment was a) an answer to a very direct and specific question about what the bible said about gay people and b) essentially his answer was a direct quote from the bible, which said something along the lines of gay people will burn in hell - I think he even cited the book passage in the bible.

I like you am all for freedom of speech and fully support people's right to believe what they want. Folau believes this and unless sked he doesnt seem to push his beliefs onto anyone - although of late he has been a little more vocal on this particular topic.

The media slander of his belief has created it's own hate speech against him.

Queenslander 3x a year

paulm
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post screenhunter 20 dec. 05 18.55

coochiee wrote:

paulm wrote:

What is the definition of hate speech? Is there a legal one? 

I always get frustrated arguing specific examples of what is or isn't hate speech, when it's such a subjective thing.

It generally always leads to "well if you haven't been oppressed by this particular thing then you don't know what it's like, so you're not allowed an opinion".

Does there need to be a legal definition?

Only if there are going to be legal consequences, or if people are going to be silenced officially somehow. 

Otherwise, no need.

In this case, we are talking about legal ramifications, like Folau potentially being dismissed by the ARU or something similar. And some people are advocating for the things he said to be legislated against in some way. 

If any of those things are to happen, then a legal definition becomes 100% necessary. 

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.