NRL Player Punished for Political Speech

Vote for Pedro on 15/09/2022 - 20:47
Last edited 16/09/2022 - 10:16

Caitlan Moran posted "Today's a good fkn day. uncle Luke [Combs] announces his tour and this dumb dog [the Queen] dies. Happy fkn Friday," on her Instagram last week before deleting the post.

Moran was given a one-match ban and fined 25 per cent of her salary, with the fine suspended for a year in lieu of a further breach of the NRL's Code of Conduct.

Is this an attack on free speech?

How do people feel about the suspension?

Edit: apologies. I think I just confused things by adding the free speech line

Poll Options

  • 472
    I support the suspension
  • 125
    I think the suspension is outrageous
Sports & Outdoors Rugby League

Comments

                                      • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 18:26

                                        @Vote for Pedro:

                                        ‘Your organisation’ doesn’t mean you personally. And then it gets worse from there.

                                        It was a legitimate question, I had no idea what you were referring to, and we weren't talking about an organisation.

                                        It’s not the end

                                        What's the end then? The money?

                                        But I guess your attitude is clear with your ‘eternal victims’ line.

                                        That's what people claim though, it's the same the world over. Nothing ever good enough, there is no end ever in sight.

                                        Not sure why you started this thread pretending you had no bias, when it's obvious what you were looking for. A free pass due to someones race.

                                        • Vote for Pedro on 17/09/2022 - 18:34

                                          @brendanm: Only in response to your shift.

                                          I’m clear in my position on the ban.

                                          Do the course with an open mind. I did it with a fairly closed mind tbh. I learnt things we definitely didn’t get taught at school. But also got an appreciation from learning about the stolen generations. I literally had no idea there are people still alive today who were stolen.

                                          We only recognised the indigenous population as citizens in the 60’s. Literally people still alive today who were born here whose ancestors were here for 60,000 years but they weren’t citizens.

                                          As for where it ends, no, money is not the only answer. It’s about truth, a real voice and constitutional recognition but alongside it needs practical solutions to entrenched racism within our population. It exists as much as we like to tell ourselves it doesn’t. I’m not going to sit here and claim to have all the answers but I recognise the importance of both symbolic gestures and practical solutions side by side

                                          It’s telling that the LNP always bring up the practical solutions argument whenever a conversation is had around the apology, recognition and a voice. Dutton abstained from the apology motion in 2008. Says it all really

                                          Do the course. Would love to talk to you afterwards.

                                          • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 19:57

                                            @Vote for Pedro:

                                            Only in response to your shift.

                                            I haven't shifted, was just hoping to get your actual feeling on the matter. I think both her and falou can say whatever they want, but they then have to deal with the repurcussions from their employers. I don't think people should be "cancelled" for any of these things. It's their opinion, it's good to be able to see people's stances on things, so you know who they are and what they stand for.

                                            But also got an appreciation from learning about the stolen generations. I literally had no idea there are people still alive today who were stolen.

                                            I'm well aware of the stolen generation, and well aware it was a very shit thing to do. Also aware there are still issues from it these days. I have no issue with these people that were directly affected being apologised to and compensated for their treatment.

                                            I do have an issue with people getting monetarily compensated for things that happened 200 years ago.

                                            It’s about truth, a real voice and constitutional recognition but alongside it needs practical solutions to entrenched racism within our population

                                            Do you honestly think anything is going to change? We have had affirmative action for a while now. No one ever addresses the actual issues, and no one ever breaks the cycle.

                                            It’s telling that the LNP always bring up the practical solutions argument whenever a conversation is had around the apology, recognition and a voice. Dutton abstained from the apology motion in 2008. Says it all really

                                            No idea what this has to do with me, I've never voted lnp in my life.

                                            Do the course. Would love to talk to you afterwards.

                                            I think you honestly have an incredibly incorrect view about my feelings toward first nations people.

                                            • Vote for Pedro on 17/09/2022 - 20:13

                                              @brendanm: I can only form a view based on what you say.

                                            • Autonomic on 19/09/2022 - 10:48

                                              @brendanm:

                                              I do have an issue with people getting monetarily compensated for things that happened 200 years ago.

                                              The entire current aboriginal population was affected by their attempted genocide. It's crazy to think that just because their enslaved parents were killed ,the kids are now completely unaffected.

                                              • brendanm on 19/09/2022 - 11:09

                                                @Autonomic:

                                                just because their enslaved parents were killed ,the kids are now completely unaffected.

                                                It wasn't their parents. It was great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents.

                                                As above, I should claim reparations from the Germans for what happened to my grandmother, grandfather and aunts?

                                                • Autonomic on 19/09/2022 - 11:14

                                                  @brendanm: >

                                                  It wasn't their parents. It was great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents.

                                                  What do you mean? There were mass killings of indigenous people in the 1920s. Their kids grandkids would be alive today.

                                                  • brendanm on 19/09/2022 - 11:55

                                                    @Autonomic: I said 200 years ago, and you literally quoted it above.

                                                    However, in that case, where are my reparations? I'm one less generation away than that, and am yet to get anything.

                                                    • Autonomic on 19/09/2022 - 12:07

                                                      @brendanm: Your argument is that you didn't get any therefore no one should?

                                                      I said 200 years ago, and you literally quoted it above.

                                                      You said "great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents.". It's only parents or grandparents. It didn't end 200 years ago.

                                                      • brendanm on 19/09/2022 - 12:54

                                                        @Autonomic:

                                                        Your argument is that you didn't get any therefore no one should?

                                                        No, my argument is, who decides who gets this? Who's atrocity is enough? Why am I able to overcome intergenerational PTSD, but others can't?

                                                        You said "great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents.". It's only parents or grandparents. It didn't end 200 years ago.

                                                        I said 200 years ago. No one's grandparents were alive 200 years ago. You quoted this exact time period yourself.

                                                        • Autonomic on 19/09/2022 - 14:21

                                                          @brendanm: I'm genuinely confused by what your point is here. Massacres of indigenous population continued even until the 1920s. You understand that right? Therefore generations of trauma are only 1-2 removed.

                                                          Why am I able to overcome intergenerational PTSD, but others can't?

                                                          Same reason some vets develop PTSD and others don't, despite being in the same conflicts?

                                                          • brendanm on 19/09/2022 - 16:23

                                                            @Autonomic:

                                                            I'm genuinely confused by what your point is here.

                                                            I said one thing, you said something else. People still reference the "invasion times" as being traumatic.

                                                            Same reason some vets develop PTSD and others don't, despite being in the same conflicts?

                                                            Except no one 1 or 2 generations removed have "intergenerational PTSD" from that conflict. It only seems to manifest itself when there is something to be gained.

                                                            • Autonomic on 19/09/2022 - 17:25

                                                              @brendanm: OK? You're the one who brought up the idea of "intergenerational PTSD"

                                                              • brendanm on 19/09/2022 - 21:56

                                                                @Autonomic:

                                                                OK? You're the one who brought up the idea of "intergenerational PTSD"

                                                                It's a thing people claim. People who want to get money for something that didn't affect them.

  • drumondo on 16/09/2022 - 07:35
    +3

    Not sure that qualifies as political commentary, but in any case freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

  • Lovemydeals on 16/09/2022 - 07:57
    +2

    The sad thing is this would be one of the bigger stories on the NRLW. The NRL had to save the NRLW back in 2020. This may have been due to poor viewership numbers, attendance at games.

    Regardless of personal opinions of her majesty the queen, at the end of the day she is an employee of the NRLW. Just because she throws a ball for a living doesn't make her above everyone else.

    Just imagine if anyone at your workplace posted/tweeted etc calling an aboriginal person or anyone for that matter a dog & being glad that they passed away.
    As its the current year they would have been cancelled & likely jobless & people protesting outside their workplace & probably their home.

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-funding-to-save-women-s…

    • BluebirdV on 16/09/2022 - 15:10

      Yes, things have changed a lot. In the old days they would cut your head off if you said that. Now the repercussions for saying this are worse if you said it about an Aboriginal than the Queen.

  • toomuchdogfur on 16/09/2022 - 08:37
    +16

    You could remove 99% of the context and the result would be the same, it's not a race issue at all.

    • Public figure publicly calls someone a "dumb dog"
    • Their employer, a very publicly facing company who considers this public figure as a representative of their company, views said comment dimly

    If she wrote something more nuanced and factual (say, detailing the atrocities perpetuated against indigenous people in the name of The Crown) and then got slapped down by her employer, then there'd be a good argument against her employer's actions.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 16/09/2022 - 10:13
      +1

      Well said. +1

    • UFO on 17/09/2022 - 14:59

      ^ This!

      On complete removal of context, what she said was still inappropriate and against the NRL's Conduct Rules.

      1 game suspension wasn't enough.

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 16/09/2022 - 08:55
    +9

    Or… Hear me out…. People in the public eye should perhaps behave in the manner expected (and agreed upon!!) of them?

    Log off twitter, stop being a twit, wash off the clown makeup and do your f-ing job.

  • ozhunter on 16/09/2022 - 09:31

    Moran was given a one-match ban and fined 25 per cent of her salary, with the fine suspended for a year in lieu of a further breach of the NRL's Code of Conduct.

    25% seems insane, even if it is suspended.

    • SBOB on 16/09/2022 - 10:10
      -1

      25% seems insane, even if it is suspended.

      and being NRLW, 25% of their salary is probably something like $3k

      • ozhunter on 16/09/2022 - 23:27
        +1

        Maybe why the media said 25% instead of 3k; looks like a more ridiculous amount. Way over the top punishment imo.

  • Drakesy on 16/09/2022 - 10:29
    +2

    And they say Rugby players are safe from brain injury…

    TBH though i think the whole league is toxic and needs a serious looking at with regards to emotional intelligence.

  • Some Human on 16/09/2022 - 10:40
    +4

    I wonder how she would feel if some half wit said similar things about her mother or grandmother after they died.

    Maybe she should change her name to Caitlan Moron

  • Brian McGee on 16/09/2022 - 11:00

    I would wonder if she has/had any mention of the club she plays for or the NRL on her social media, as those pages are seen as an extension of the workplace if it does.
    I worked at a place where a receptionist complained about 'working with so many old bags', and one of the 'old bags' saw this and complained to HR. The 'young bag' was fired because she had 'works at Xxxxx' in her bio.

    • Poor Ass on 16/09/2022 - 11:30

      were you one of the old bags?

      Poor Ass on 16/09/2022 - 11:30 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • Herbse on 16/09/2022 - 11:32
    +4

    How do I feel about someone signing a contract with a company who pays them a salary then breaking the rules of that contract and having the penalties that they were warned about being enacted on them in a totally legal and professional manner?

    Just fine, thanks for asking.

  • Ughhh on 16/09/2022 - 11:38
    +6

    this dumb dog [the Queen] dies

    What a lady.
    Queen or not, thats pretty disgusting and disrespectful thing to say. Leave those nasty remarks for ones who deserve it, like pedos.

  • KaTst3R on 16/09/2022 - 11:51
    +1

    There is a difference being a rude (profanity) and saying constructive things to put across your political views.

    • greatlamp on 16/09/2022 - 15:05

      Exactly. Rejoicing in someone’s death is just being obscenely rude, there is no politics in that statement.

      Let's not pretend this is a free speech issue

  • jonathonsunshine on 16/09/2022 - 11:54
    -1

    I know there are many mentions of Folau in this thread but I wanted to put in my two cents, I think that they were both hard done by in the sense that it's unfair that they cannot express their opinions but the NRL itself is allowed to.

    The NRL shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion either way on social issues, because they are speaking on behalf of the players, whilst not allowing the players to speak for themselves.

    • Canberralad92 on 16/09/2022 - 17:47
      +1

      The players can find another job if they don't like what their employer represents?

  • PerthMan96 on 16/09/2022 - 11:58

    thats one way to bring the game, your team, and yourself into disrepute. Its free speech for those who say kind words, its never free speech for utter crap

    • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 17:28
      -1

      I agree. Like when abbot stood in front of a sign that called gillard Bob Brown’s b*tch. Pretty disgraceful, wouldn’t you agree

  • 82norm on 16/09/2022 - 13:32
    +1

    Only had to watch Q&A last night when the topic was brought up…no wonder why the show lacks credibility.

  • 82norm on 16/09/2022 - 13:41
    +1

    I’m finding it more and more that indigenous Australians are unfortunately trying to divide this country and ultimately they are their own worse enemies. Whatever happened in the past, for whatever reasons, well intentioned or not, poorly executed by white settlers, past governments is history. Need to move away from this divisiveness, it simply doesn’t help their cause and just infuriates more people.

    • Richmond Tigers on 19/09/2022 - 08:24

      Nah, its still a very vocal minority supported by sympathetic city dwelling soy latte (hold the coffee) drinkers.

  • Danstar on 16/09/2022 - 14:23

    What was Folau given for similar sentiments in regards to gays?

    • Eeples on 18/09/2022 - 08:27

      1st time: warning only.

      His problems started when he wouldn’t remove it.

  • BluebirdV on 16/09/2022 - 15:01

    What did the Queen ever do to her to make her say something like that?

    • brendanm on 16/09/2022 - 16:32
      +3

      Something something intergenerational DNA PTSD.

      • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 17:26
        -2

        Bet you wouldn’t say that to descendants of families impacted by the holocaust

        • infinite on 16/09/2022 - 22:46
          +1

          Why would any of us take offense at that ?

          Losers who take offense on behalf of other people are the actual problem.

          • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 23:07
            +1

            @infinite: So all the people criticising the footy player are just losers who take offense on behalf of other people?

        • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 14:46
          +1

          I actually would. Read my other post where I stated my relatives were held in camps during WWII. I don't hold grudges against people who weren't even alive at the point, what is that going to achieve? Let's just hold grudges against everyone for everything that's every happened, even through it was 10 generations ago, let's all fight forever 🙄.

    • Eeples on 18/09/2022 - 08:29

      Some ppl may think that the queen represented the empire that ‘discovered’ Australia. Some ppl might think that was a bad thing for some other ppl.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 16/09/2022 - 17:23
    +2

    No idea who she is, but hopefully someone will post a similar thing when she dies for her family and friends to read.

  • FlyingMiffy on 16/09/2022 - 17:40

    Not much different to the Folau arguments and counter arguments. She's signed a professional code of conduct underpinning her job. Broke the code, get fined and if she likes, she can follow the process to appeal.

    • Willy Beamish on 16/09/2022 - 19:02
      -1

      Actually quite different, unless her religion is being a (profanity).

      • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 19:52
        -4

        Why does an book of fiction make any difference?

  • Canberralad92 on 16/09/2022 - 17:45
    +2

    Talk shit, get hit.

  • Willy Beamish on 16/09/2022 - 19:01

    Who?

  • Vanceer on 16/09/2022 - 20:29
    +5

    Where's the Sky News outrage brigade bombarding us with "CANCEL CULTURE GONE MAD" and "FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK" with a little bit of "LEFTIES SILENCE FREEDOM"?

    • Willy Beamish on 16/09/2022 - 21:39

      The same place the leftards "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" spiel is.

    • infinite on 16/09/2022 - 22:32

      They said on air that she should have the right to say what she wants, no matter how offensive you find it, because that's exactly the point of free speech. It allows idiots like her to proudly proclaim and show her ignorance to the world so none of us have to even guess about it. They stated she should have had the right to say that without consequence, exactly like Isreal Folau should have had same right.

      They also pointed out on air that none of the mainstream media applied the same standards though, immediately rushing to Moran's defense, while attempting a digital lynching of Folau previously for the exact same type of "thought crime".

      Her story was the top Sky News story of that day: https://skynews.icu/top-stories/83773-caitlin-moran-australi…

  • infinite on 16/09/2022 - 22:21

    Wait, how are women being payed to play rugby?

    They have no audience, no viewers and no commercial value. What is the source their salaries. Is it like a Government sponsored thing or something?

    • MessyG on 18/09/2022 - 10:39
      -1

      I hate to break it to you…but you're wrong. There is an audience, viewers, and commercial value.

      But way to tell on yourself there. chefs kiss

  • cannedhams on 16/09/2022 - 22:27

    I remember how hypocritical the NBA looked when it attempted to allow players to express certain political opinions, while squashing any criticism of China's treatment of its Uyghur population.

    I think the only position that can be consistently applied is a complete restriction on any speech likely to engender controversy. Yes, that would apply to Israel Folau as well.

    The National Soccer League (ie before the A-League days) had constant problems with this. Croats making comments likely to upset Serbs, Greeks making comments likely to upset Turks. And on it goes.

    Its simply pointless for a sporting organisation to try and debate the merits of the political issues, they will never do so to anyone's satisfaction and they will soon find that they won't have time for anything else. I completely understand if you're a Croat who had their family slaughtered by Serbs (or vice versa), you're going to have strong feelings about it, but as a sporting organisation we're simply not going to allow you to use our platform to signal boost those views.

    If the player insists on their right to make those comments, fine, leave the organisation and you can spend all day posting on social media if you so wish.

    • infinite on 16/09/2022 - 22:43

      The National Soccer League (ie before the A-League days) had constant problems with this. Croats making comments likely to upset Serbs, Greeks making comments likely to upset Turks. And on it goes.

      That was just basic marketing before social media. Get on the radio, crap-talk next weeks opponents and their feral fans, lob a bunch of personal and ethnic insults everyone would laugh hysterically about, then all come out and watch a great game while relentlessly singing insulting songs at the people across the other side of the pitch. Win, draw or lose, everyone meets at the pub / social-club afterwards for a meal and a laugh with the family and kids.

      • cannedhams on 17/09/2022 - 00:30

        I suppose it depends on your idea of a good time. A lot of the young men liked it Im sure, not sure about the families with young kids.

  • hasher22 on 16/09/2022 - 22:41

    Hate when people think "free speech" or the entitlement to have an opinion which harms or be negative to another should not have repercussions.

    She deserved it. No ifs or buts.

    I can't just go around calling people negative connotations and remarks and think I'm protected by this so called "freedom".

    She is a moron (if I do get backlash for this statement, I welcome it but I won't have a cry that I'm not protected to voice my opinion)

    • Willy Beamish on 17/09/2022 - 11:24

      Your opinion or speech cannot harm anyone….

      • hasher22 on 17/09/2022 - 11:59
        +1

        It definitely can, that's why defamation lawsuits exist.

        If I say it to your face, you can not sue me, you can only take offense if you choose to let it get to you or make it cause harm to yourself.

        But if I post it on social media and my words/opinion negatively impacts you and I target you, even if I don't say your name but it suggests it's you or there's enough evidence that it affects you, then it can definitely harm you.

        If I had 500k followers and said "this person,Willy Beamish is not to be trusted, don't trust a word they posts online", then your reputation tarnished just like that and you can sue me if you have further evidence that your online social presence is not the same before what I said.

        • Willy Beamish on 17/09/2022 - 12:05
          -3

          Your opinion or speech cannot HARM anyone.

          noun
          physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
          "I didn't mean to cause him any harm"

          verb
          physically injure.
          "the villains didn't harm him"

          • SBOB on 17/09/2022 - 12:19
            +3

            @Willy Beamish: You think the word harm only applies to physical injury?

            Might want to expand on your dictionary lookup a little.

          • hasher22 on 17/09/2022 - 13:21
            +3

            @Willy Beamish: It's interesting to see that you have not responded to anything I have said in regards to defamation.

            You advised the word 'harm' and the definition.

            The fact you only took Google's first definition of 'harm' that came up and copied and pasted it shows that you lack further research and how the word 'harm' can expand to non-physical injuries.

            Harm britannica: "physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc."

            Therefore back to my original reply to you: "It definitely can, that's why defamation lawsuits exist."

            Harm in defamation legal aid: "If someone causes harm to your reputation by publishing material about you that changes the way people feel about you, you may have been harmed in a legal sense. Not all offensive, embarrassing or upsetting remarks cause harm to your reputation."

          • cashews on 17/09/2022 - 13:41

            @Willy Beamish: have an adverse effect on.
            "this could harm his World Cup prospects"

    • ozhunter on 17/09/2022 - 19:15

      which harms or be negative

      Lol

  • Ponka on 17/09/2022 - 03:08
    +1

    I mean, I agree (profanity) the Queen and all, but that doesn't mean there's no freedom of consequences with your words, particularly posting them publicly to your following - if the NRL feels their Code of Conduct was breached then they can issue whatever punishment they want.

  • NatoTomato on 17/09/2022 - 07:59
    +1

    I supported Israel Folau's ban, so I guess I gotta support the punishment here, just questioning if it was a male NRL player who did this, whether it would get any air time. Seems the media are happy to go after the "crazy sjw women" narrative more often.

    • lonewolf on 17/09/2022 - 10:02

      umm, male NRL Players have far severe treatments compared to the NRLW players both in the media and by NRL, only difference is with Male players everyone feels its ok, with female players everyone jumps up and says poor female…. Case in point was the kissing incident (during covid) between a male player and a female player and the punishments dealt out to both.

      • NatoTomato on 18/09/2022 - 10:38

        Regardless, the NRL said Elliott's conduct leading to his removal breached biosecurity protocols and said his off-field disciplinary record contributed to the fine amount.[0]

        There a couple of incidents in there mate as well [1].

        Maybe pick another one to go off of, not saying you're wrong, but a quick look into it found some holes in your example.

        [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-26/nrl-adam-elliott-mill…
        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Elliott

        • lonewolf on 18/09/2022 - 11:19

          After there was an outcry of preferential treatment, they come out with "the reasons" but at the end of the day they still cant answer why one was punished and one wasnt. Alot of NRL players lose contracts, stood down without pay for incidents they are later cleared of as being innocent. There is no point comparing NRL and NRLW punishments, the 2 are not even close, if you followed all the incidents that pop up, it will be clear as light and day.

          • NatoTomato on 18/09/2022 - 19:48

            @lonewolf: Because he'd already had offences that brought bad press to the code (that weren't punished, warnings were given), where as Millie Boyle didn't… so the NRLW gave her a warning, and the NRL gave him a fine.

            If there are all these incidents, send another one through.

            • lonewolf on 19/09/2022 - 09:33

              @NatoTomato: Like I said, there was an outcry, you said media, well if you had seen the media frenzy about the male player and none about the female player. Until people started asking why the difference in male treatment vs females and then they came out with these reasons. Look up any of the NRL players, they lose contracts and large amounts of pay even in circumstances where they are later proven innocent.

  • pharkurnell on 17/09/2022 - 11:29
    +6

    who the hell is Caitlan Moran and why should i give a shit what she says?

  • Whomastadon on 17/09/2022 - 12:09
    +1

    Just like other " private companies " like twitter / Facebook that can ban, block or suspend people because they are a " private company ", so can an NRL club.

    It goes both ways.

    You get banned off twitter for saying " men are not women " apparently, and you get suspended from a professional sports club for celebrating someone's death.

  • UFO on 17/09/2022 - 14:54
    +4

    Copy pasta from NRL Code of Conduct:

    "Respecting and celebrating diversity in culture, gender, sexuality
    and social background."

    Very clearly broke that particular conduct rule. She would never accept anyone talking like that about a deceased member from her people, so what gives her an inkling that she can talk about other people like that? The Queen may not be relative to her culture or social background, but by god she WILL respect those differences in belief.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech/expression. I can only imagine the outrage if anyone dared disrespect an Elder or other respected "Uncle" or "Aunty" by calling them a "dumb dog".

    One game penalty not enough. Not even close to enough.

  • corvusman on 17/09/2022 - 15:21
    +1

    “ God save the queen
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    A potential H bomb

    God save the queen
    She's not a human being
    and There's no future
    And England's dreaming “

    I wonder what will happen if someone would sing these words in 2022 🤔

    • trapper on 17/09/2022 - 23:56
      +2

      Hopefully not violently attacked multiple times in the streets with knives, razors and various other weapons like the Sex Pistols were after this was released in 1977.

  • ribze1 on 17/09/2022 - 17:10
    +3

    For the 100th time - free speech does not mean you are free from consequences.
    If i send a company wide emailing telling my CEO to get fked then i am going to get fired right? But i'm exercising free speech.

  • trapper on 17/09/2022 - 23:04
    +2

    Rejoicing in someone’s death isn't political speech.

  • ColonialBoy on 18/09/2022 - 00:15
    +2

    The implied right to free speech in the Australian Constitution relates to the government limiting free speech.

    Civil matters have nothing to do with this. Defamation is a civil matter. Sporting Codes of Conduct are civil matters. Sporting organisations can make their own rules.

  • Eeples on 18/09/2022 - 08:37
    +2

    She’s young, She removed it. The fine is suspended.

    I hope she can reflect and then use her position to speak on indigenous issues in a more positive way.

    An Aboriginal Voice, Imo, will help with this.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/09/2022 - 15:26
    +1

    2022 and people get mad cus a "Queen" died. lmao.

  • sarahlump on 18/09/2022 - 16:40
    +1

    Got a public facing job? put your social media on private. as the meerkats of compare the meerkat.com would say
    'simples'.

    However, politician? feel like shitting on a minority? thats $$$ all is forgiven.

  • stralya on 18/09/2022 - 18:16
    +1

    An interesting piece by Stan Grant of the ABC that touches on this issue a bit…
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-18/queen-death-indigenou…
    "Australians will likely vote in a referendum for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice to Parliament, but what good would that voice be if at times like these it is reduced to a whisper?"

    And another article which is from a more international perspective
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-18/queen-elizabeth-ii-em…
    And while not suggesting the Queen bears personal responsibility for the Empire’s violence, Martens says it’s impossible to ignore that as symbolic head of the British government in colonial Kenya “her position was invoked all the time to legitimise what was going on there and everywhere else in the Empire.”

  • kiriakoz on 18/09/2022 - 18:19
    +1

    I personally don't agree with what she said, but I agree with her right to say it. It didn't affect me in the slightest. I hate that people's viewpoint on people being allowed to say things that could be considered "offensive" is dependant upon whether they agree with the content of what's said rather than being morally consistent.

  • bah humbug on 18/09/2022 - 20:35
    +1

    Freedom of speech!

    Just watch what you say…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join