Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Izzy Folau
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 940802" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>One small clarification about my earlier post. If they sack him, i meant paying whatever they have to in order to do so legally. I'm assuming a) there isnt anything in folau's contract that prevents him from doing this b) there is some sort of financial penalty for the tahs if they terminate the contract unilaterally (or pay the contract in full, that too) </p><p>The logic would be along the lines of</p><p></p><p>Tahs: izzie, dude, wtf</p><p>Folau: i'll say whatever i want</p><p>Tahs: fine, they you're no longer part of the tahs</p><p>Folau: fine, just pay me what's left of my contract</p><p>Tahs: fine</p><p>Folau: fine</p><p></p><p></p><p>I kinda agree, mostly.</p><p>I have two views on this depending on the day/ mood. </p><p>The first one is that to solve that you would need to change freedom of worship. Something along the lines of free to worship whatever you want <em>as long as it doesnt conflict with other laws</em> would do<em>.</em> Basically as things stand now you have what could be described as conflicting rights. This means it could be unclear which right takes priority over the other. With this amendment, you would solve that problem. I like this a lot but i dont think the world is ready yet. </p><p>The second one is more laissez-faire and would require a different approach to hate speech. Other than shouting very specific things on specific places (cinema, stadium, plane) anything goes. If people act on it the ones acting are responsible. This view comes from the idea that suppressing speech by labelling it hate speech is first a slippery slope and second, it will backfire spectacularly sooner than later. When enough people think something, even if it's stupid/discriminatory, people wont say it out loud but they will vote for someone who promises them to change that, and odds are eventually they will get that chance. When that happens, it 'll look more like revenge than justice. I think the "free for all until you go from words to actions" is the lesser of two evils. </p><p></p><p>Again, i dont have a firm position on this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 940802, member: 55747"] One small clarification about my earlier post. If they sack him, i meant paying whatever they have to in order to do so legally. I'm assuming a) there isnt anything in folau's contract that prevents him from doing this b) there is some sort of financial penalty for the tahs if they terminate the contract unilaterally (or pay the contract in full, that too) The logic would be along the lines of Tahs: izzie, dude, wtf Folau: i'll say whatever i want Tahs: fine, they you're no longer part of the tahs Folau: fine, just pay me what's left of my contract Tahs: fine Folau: fine I kinda agree, mostly. I have two views on this depending on the day/ mood. The first one is that to solve that you would need to change freedom of worship. Something along the lines of free to worship whatever you want [I]as long as it doesnt conflict with other laws[/I] would do[I].[/I] Basically as things stand now you have what could be described as conflicting rights. This means it could be unclear which right takes priority over the other. With this amendment, you would solve that problem. I like this a lot but i dont think the world is ready yet. The second one is more laissez-faire and would require a different approach to hate speech. Other than shouting very specific things on specific places (cinema, stadium, plane) anything goes. If people act on it the ones acting are responsible. This view comes from the idea that suppressing speech by labelling it hate speech is first a slippery slope and second, it will backfire spectacularly sooner than later. When enough people think something, even if it's stupid/discriminatory, people wont say it out loud but they will vote for someone who promises them to change that, and odds are eventually they will get that chance. When that happens, it 'll look more like revenge than justice. I think the "free for all until you go from words to actions" is the lesser of two evils. Again, i dont have a firm position on this. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Izzy Folau
Top