 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^
Yeah, read that somewhere. Makes Izzy seem positively mild.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I’d say that’s a clear case where one could say his extreme homophobic views make him unfit for his role as a police officer. Note the key differences here: Folau is talking about purely metaphysical issues (i.e. who does or doesn’t go to hell), whereas the preacher in this case is advocating real-world harm – harm that he is, disconcertingly enough, in a position to carry out in part.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And his strongly biased views is likely to affect his objectivity when investigating crimes which casts strong doubt on his arrests.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
I’d say that’s a clear case where one could say his extreme homophobic views make him unfit for his role as a police officer. Note the key differences here: Folau is talking about purely metaphysical issues (i.e. who does or doesn’t go to hell), whereas the preacher in this case is advocating real-world harm – harm that he is, disconcertingly enough, in a position to carry out in part. |
A position he won't be in for long if I understand what a "county buyout of his position" means
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
I’d say that’s a clear case where one could say his extreme homophobic views make him unfit for his role as a police officer. Note the key differences here: Folau is talking about purely metaphysical issues (i.e. who does or doesn’t go to hell), whereas the preacher in this case is advocating real-world harm – harm that he is, disconcertingly enough, in a position to carry out in part. |
But there are no serious non-metaphysical positions that get you to the belief that gay people are worthy of death, so that's seems like a false dichotomy.
Also, given a large proportion of religious people see themselves as literal "servants of god", and do not hold to a dualism that separates their religious fantasies from their physical lives, I don't think you can safely hide behind metaphorical game play, either. Neither Folau nor Fritts are engaging in art or idle speculation; indeed, as ardent fundamentalists by definition they would find the very suggestion offensive.
I also can't see how the distinction you make between Folau and the more extreme Fritts can be derived from this:
| David wrote: | | ...[freedom of speech] doesn’t mean freedom from all consequences. Despite the complexities of the Goodes affair and the undeniable racial element to the booing, we usually understand booing as a legitimate form of expression. But freedom of speech does mean freedom from certain consequences, namely experiencing serious loss of autonomy, safety and wellbeing (including, in my view, the right to work and participate in society). If you don’t believe me, go into the middle of Pyongyang and scream that Kim Jong Un is a psychopath, which anyone is absolutely free to do if they please – you’ll find that North Korea has full freedom of speech, but slightly less freedom from consequence. |
Sure, Fritts is more aggressive and holds a position of authority, but that shouldn't matter if speech is separate to the consequences you list.
I think it's cleaner to put aside the Bunyip of "free speech" and start with the actual moral/legal concept at hand, whether that be some variant of the freedom/harm trade-off, or another formulation of the problem. From there, we can continuing doing what we already do in reality and determine how harmful certain speech is, and whether or not it can be curtailed without causing even greater harm. (It's always worth re-visiting the actual limits of speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions).
The nightmarish Orwellian visions which people are primed to bring to the topic are given far too much weight in a conversation which consists of the actual lived nightmares of victims of hate speech. I don't think Folau has even begun to compute the magnitude of the harm his views are causing, although social media has clearly made bullying and mob violence more visible. However, people in a reasoned forum such as a court can readily be shown through testimony, experimental evidence and statistical outcomes that all kinds of harm can and do emanate from speech.
I don't know what the right balance is, but I most certainly believe that harm which emanates from speech needs to be acknowledged with clear eyes rather being waved away as vague collateral damage already factored into an equation handed down to us by the fathers.
The personal rights/corporate contract issue is a different problem, although I think the waters are more muddied than necessary because we haven't dealt with the above, leaving organisations to deal with the fallout. I am surprised that you think Fritts' role in policing is necessarily problematic given people regularly compartmentalise. He might be a creep who does a super job, even if the police can still argue that public trust is central to their mission and he is undermining that outcome.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
While it doesn’t affect my views on the case, I do suspect the harms of Folau’s post have been wildly overstated. Every single same-sex-attracted person in our society is fully aware that a substantial proportion of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) think that the expression of their sexuality is sinful and, if not repented for, liable to result in divine punishment. Many will have heard this message in churches and mosques since before they even knew what the word homosexuality meant. So the idea that Folau’s meme is some kind of shattering of the bounds of accepted discourse is one I find fairly incredulous.
That, of course, raises the question of whether it should be. But I note that nobody, to my knowledge, has actually seriously suggested making such commentary illegal. That’s because speech-policing laws like 18c contain strict exemptions for public expression of religious belief. And because we all know that removing those exemptions would be a serious, and probably unacceptable, blow against religious freedoms. So why punish Folau – a self-designated evangelist – for doing something that others are not punished for? In contrast, it’s not hard to make a case that Fritts would be contravening hate speech laws and bringing his ability to carry out his professional role into question.
I get your point that the in-theory fundamental distinction between Folau’s "hate the sin, love the sinner" rhetoric and Fritts’ advocacy for civil persecution might not always be so affectively distinct in the minds of homophobes. But we still have to draw lines in the policing of hate speech, or else we risk repeating the worst mistakes of free speech advocates and opponents alike: conflating criticism with censorship, and condemnation of ideas or actions with vilification of people. That leaves us unable to approach these topics with any real nuance, and will lend itself to overreaction.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
And copping a serious backlash about it. Calling it "the fight of his life" hasn't compared well against the terminally ill and other genuine cases who want money for medical treatment.
A bloke who's earned millions over a 10 year sporting career seeking everyday people to donate money to him to pay for lawyers to sue Rugby Australia to get more millions (and potentially bankrupt Rugby Australia in the process) isn't getting a lot of sympathy for some reason.
I understand he does or used to tithe a lot of his earnings to the Church, so maybe just ask for some back?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yep stui ask for it back!
What a shithead, I can’t believe people are putting money in, not a chance in hell even if I was on his side!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
" fight of my life"  What a flog!
Come to work with me for a week you greedy entitled muppet and see what a fight for your life really means  |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This is politics now, apparently: a pantomime in which the only priority is that villains get their comeuppance, structural considerations be damned. I have no particular opinion on whether Folau should be able to crowdfund his legal fees, but this petition seems pretty puerile, and it would probably be a bad precedent if Gofundme acceded to the request.
I’ve been thinking of writing a piece on this, obviously in support of Folau. Won’t the reaction to that be edifying.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You'd reckon as long as folks are honest about what they're raising money for, and it isn't for something illegal, they should be allowed to do it. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, yeah, pretty much. But I doubt many people signing that petition have a strong view on the ethics of crowdfunding or have even thought a great deal about such principles. All that matters is that Folau is a bad guy and Something Must Be Done.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The gofundme page for Israel has been closed down! All donations pledged will be returned.
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
