-
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
This was an early tweet on the subject which may have some bearing on things:
Factually correct?! Go-fund-me's?
My understanding is that the court case would have determined the facts.
Considering Go fund me has bent the knee to the mob before I'm a little surprised Issy went through them, maybe he didn't quite realise just how deep this problem runs.
I see there is a Christian alternative https://www.givesendgo.com/blog/gofundme_alternative
..then it would just be up to payment processors to ban him. -
@Paekakboyz mate who fucking knows? This whole issue departed from anything meaningful once Folau shot himself in the foot at the CoC hearing and then decided he was being persecuted.
-
@Rembrandt yeah I could see him moving to another platform and getting even more support than via gofundme.
If the payment processors started denying services that'd kick things up to a whole new level.
@NTA yeah it's rapidly gone down a slippery slope. I wonder how things might have progressed if RA had just cooled their jets and followed process without that initial commentary about nuking his contract.
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
My understanding is that the court case would have determined the facts.
Perhaps then he should have gone straight to court, proved it was religious, then asked for money?
He would have already won the case and could ask the public to reimburse his costs.
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
I wonder how things might have progressed if RA had just cooled their jets and followed process without that initial commentary about nuking his contract.
Don't think it would have mattered. As soon as the contract was torn up this was the only outcome Folau and his team probably felt they could pursue.
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
This was an early tweet on the subject which may have some bearing on things:
Factually correct?! Go-fund-me's?
My understanding is that the court case would have determined the facts.
Considering Go fund me has bent the knee to the mob before I'm a little surprised Issy went through them, maybe he didn't quite realise just how deep this problem runs.
I see there is a Christian alternative https://www.givesendgo.com/blog/gofundme_alternative
..then it would just be up to payment processors to ban him.Do you reckon he chose it deliberately ?
-
@booboo said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
This was an early tweet on the subject which may have some bearing on things:
Factually correct?! Go-fund-me's?
My understanding is that the court case would have determined the facts.
Considering Go fund me has bent the knee to the mob before I'm a little surprised Issy went through them, maybe he didn't quite realise just how deep this problem runs.
I see there is a Christian alternative https://www.givesendgo.com/blog/gofundme_alternative
..then it would just be up to payment processors to ban him.Do you reckon he chose it deliberately ?
It's either dumb luck or him and/or his team having manipulated the situation to perfection. I lean towards dumb luck but who knows.
-
@NTA Yes. It's starting to look a little like persecution for ideas outside of the groupthink.
Which is "fine" when you agree with the opinion, but that's the funny thing about restricting speech like this is eventually it won't be an opinion you disagree with.
For example, if you tweeted about the safety concerns about transgender woman fighting in the UFC. Just lost your job pal.
-
@Kirwan You'd agree, though, that freedom of expression is NOT freedom from consequence?
If I use a platform in a way that breaches the Terms & Conditions of that platform, then I forgo the right to use it in that manner. If I find I cannot meet those Terms & Conditions, I have the freedom to look for another platform.
-
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
@Kirwan You'd agree, though, that freedom of expression is NOT freedom from consequence?
If I use a platform in a way that breaches the Terms & Conditions of that platform, then I forgo the right to use it in that manner. If I find I cannot meet those Terms & Conditions, I have the freedom to look for another platform.
I find the weaponisation of platforms to remove people with objectionable opinions to be pretty disgusting. Fascist even.
I also don't think that the consequences are proportional here at all. And I don't think employers should be allowed to restrict what people believe or post in social media on their free time. No matter what their profile is.
This certainly warrants a court case IMO to set reasonable limits.
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
@Kirwan You'd agree, though, that freedom of expression is NOT freedom from consequence?
If I use a platform in a way that breaches the Terms & Conditions of that platform, then I forgo the right to use it in that manner. If I find I cannot meet those Terms & Conditions, I have the freedom to look for another platform.
I find the weaponisation of platforms to remove people with objectionable opinions to be pretty disgusting. Fascist even.
I also don't think that the consequences are proportional here at all. And I don't think employers should be allowed to restrict what people believe or post in social media on their free time. No matter what their profile is.
This certainly warrants a court case IMO to set reasonable limits.
I like this debate and find myself agreeing with your post along with being happy that his funding has been temporarily cut,
-
@Hooroo It's certainly an interesting conversation. The idiots that cut off this funding need to look up the Streisand Effect (that applies to this entire mess).
He was tracking maybe to get to $1.5 million, I think he'll make the $3million now.
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I also don't think that the consequences are proportional here at all.
I don't think there is any way to meaningfully discuss the concept of proportional response here.
It is a single hurdle: the platform believed his reasoning for a campaign did not meet their criteria. They don't have to say by how much - just that he wasn't telling the truth about his reasoning.
Its murky, but the soul of Law is interpretation.
This will - without a doubt - help his cause.
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
And I don't think employers should be allowed to restrict what people believe or post in social media on their free time. No matter what their profile is.
That is a massive can of worms. If I start drunk tweeting at 3AM that my employer is a massive fluffybunny and rips their customers off, should I be protected? Is that acceptable behaviour? Would you employ someone like that?
I think there should be a limited capacity for that kind of employment law - they don't own you, and provided you're doing your job then all good.
But again:
- If you're specifically asked not to do something deemed bad
- Then do it again
- Then refuse to communicate
- Then are unrepentant
- Then admit in the subsequent hearing that it could be harmful
What leg would any employee have to stand on?
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@NTA It's not like they are forcing one of their muslim players to eat pork. He just had to stay of social media with anything resembling hate speech. His dad probably put him up to it anyway, and it's working out perfectly for him
It's also ridiculously unprofessional. It's obvious common sense that you don't slander the people who pay your wages - in this case the rugby watching public. The focus is on the insult to gay people, but he actually slandered most of the people who would be watching him in the stands or on the TV. Regardless of your personal beliefs you're a farking idiot if you do that, particularly if you're on seven figures.
But his lack of professionalism has been matched and probably beaten by AR. Holy farking shit what a rabble. Who's your next poster boy guys? A racist who you're fine to pay millions to as long as he keeps it to himself?
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions