It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:17 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 751 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 11:45 pm 
Offline
Meanwhile...
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 15240
Location: Out on the banks
yovargas wrote:
Tolkien didn't found a religion with a few billion members.
May you be forgiven, yov.

_________________
Image

“I am not so blind that I can't see darkness.”
Dangerous Beans
Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:19 am 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 10774
Location: the dry land
yovargas wrote:
It is also very much worth noting that the tweet in question is basically just a quote from the Bible. If quoting the Bible is considered "hate speech", then we have some serious problems.

Why would source material matter when you're basically telling groups of people you believe they're going to hell because they're off being who they are? Are there any other books you can quote from that magically make such sentiments and language totally socially acceptable and not at all hateful?

That said, there's something broader at play here and that is where private and public divide in this day and age of social media. An employee of an organization is, in my opinion, entitled to their personal beliefs and they are free to do as they will within bounds of the law in their free time. On the clock, they need to follow their organization's rules if they want to stay employed and that includes social media policies. However, people do get fired because their personal activities on their personal time went viral and they embarrassed their employer or they showed themselves to be someone their teammates might now be nervous about working with (i.e., they turned out to be a neo-Nazi). So...under what circumstances is that not okay?

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:24 am 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14135
Location: Florida
River wrote:
So...under what circumstances is that not okay?


Under the circumstances where it leads to persecution of religious beliefs, one of the cornerstone foundations of our society and legal system.

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:43 am 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 10774
Location: the dry land
So if someone dropped a raunchy bit from the Song of Songs on my desk at work I shouldn't report it because Bible? My boss is a religious guy but I'm pretty sure he'd chew me out for NOT reporting an event like that.

There are benign ways to publicly express your religious beliefs. There are also not-so benign ways. Quoting a Bible verse isn't necessarily one of the benign ones.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 5069
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
This one is likely to go the Federal Court. The legal question, basically, is how much control an employer is entitled to exercise over an employee’s social media use or time when they’re not working generally. I think it’s pretty obvious there is a line somewhere, for example, female employees would have a legitimate concern in reporting to a manager with a history of posting misogynistic content on social media, and so the manager’s private social media usage could become a matter of workplace conduct. Rugby Australia argues that Folau is an ambassador for the sport by reason of being on the national team, and part of the reason he’s being paid millions is to represent Australian rugby union and its values, including inclusivity. I'd prefer if it he were allowed to express his views, and I don't think "all these people are going to hell" is necessarily hate speech (and the list included me, as an atheist). But Rugby Australia already warned him for the same conduct earlier, so they're on pretty strong ground. Folau was always entitled to practice his faith, not post anything on social media.

I would have really preferred if he hadn't have done this, because he's one of the best players in the world and Australia's world cup hopes have taken a huge hit. But I doubt this will cause Alatar any concern ;)

Plus saying drunkards are going to hell is a self-evident attack on Australian values :blackeye:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:56 am 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8759
Location: Ireland
Good point Túrin! Who's standing up for the drunken fornicators?

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:32 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4689
Location: The other side of Michigan
Hopefully no one. It's tricky enough to pull it off standing up even when you're not drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14135
Location: Florida
"I am a Christian. I believe that people who unrepentantly engage in sin will be sent to hell by God. X, Y, and Z are sinful actions in my belief."


Are we really okay with calling this statement "hate speech"?

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1039
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
yovargas wrote:
"I am a Christian. I believe that people who unrepentantly engage in sin will be sent to hell by God. X, Y, and Z are sinful actions in my belief."


Are we really okay with calling this statement "hate speech"?


I also see a (perhaps softer) difference between "I believe that these people will go to hell" and "These people are going to hell." One being, again, a statement of personal belief, the other very much still feeling like a judgement.

But where law falls either way, I have no idea.

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:12 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4689
Location: The other side of Michigan
Intent matters. If the speaker intended to threaten and intimidate, then the speech should be treated accordingly, regardless of the source of the specific words used.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:00 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8759
Location: Ireland
I'm in two minds about this. I believe you're entitled to believe that gays go to hell, but if you're an ambassador for your sport, then your boss has the right to fire you for not upholding their values in public discourse. In rugby its normally called "bringing the sport into disrepute", and given he had a formal warning for the behaviour previously then he has no right to complain.

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1039
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
Alatar wrote:
I'm in two minds about this. I believe you're entitled to believe that gays go to hell, but if you're an ambassador for your sport, then your boss has the right to fire you for not upholding their values in public discourse. In rugby its normally called "bringing the sport into disrepute", and given he had a formal warning for the behaviour previously then he has no right to complain.


There is a lot of discussion in the US about (American) Football players who use their position and visibility for social, political, or religious statements. It's up to their employer if they want to be associated with the statements made. Some have been supported, some seem to have been quietly essentially sidelined. Their freedom of speech was not infringed, their freedom of religion was not infringed, but their employer may not like the publicity and decide to no longer employ them.

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:23 pm 
Offline
Meanwhile...
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 15240
Location: Out on the banks
yovargas wrote:
"I am a Christian. I believe that people who unrepentantly engage in sin will be sent to hell by God. X, Y, and Z are sinful actions in my belief."


Are we really okay with calling this statement "hate speech"?
Context matters. Is it hate speech?

In your church? No.
In Times Square or your local equivalent? No.
In the workplace? Possibly.
As a member of Congress? Yes.

_________________
Image

“I am not so blind that I can't see darkness.”
Dangerous Beans
Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1039
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
Frelga wrote:
Context matters. Is it hate speech?

In your church? No.
In Times Square or your local equivalent? No.
In the workplace? Possibly.
As a member of Congress? Yes.


:thumbsup:

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 6118
elengil wrote:
I also see a (perhaps softer) difference between "I believe that these people will go to hell" and "These people are going to hell." One being, again, a statement of personal belief, the other very much still feeling like a judgement.

So what if it's a judgment? It's just an opinion, so who the heck cares what this one person thinks about various practitioners' eternal fates? News Flash: His opinion can't actually send anyone to hell.

Dave_LF wrote:
Intent matters. If the speaker intended to threaten and intimidate, then the speech should be treated accordingly, regardless of the source of the specific words used.
How can someone expressing the belief that practitioners of x, y and z behaviors are going to hell possibly be seen as threatening or intimidating? News Flash: His opinion can't actually send anyone to hell. Where is the threat? What is the intimidation?

elengil wrote:
Frelga wrote:
Context matters. Is it hate speech?In your church? No.In Times Square or your local equivalent? No.In the workplace? Possibly.As a member of Congress? Yes.
:thumbsup:

Why is it not 'hate' if said in church or in Times Square, but might be 'hate' in the workplace and is definitely 'hate' in Congress? Is this 'hate' a legal concept?

_________________
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1039
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
Because elected officials should not be stating anything that is or is implied as government endorsement of any religious beliefs. Yes, they do all the time, but they shouldn't. Especially when those beliefs are predicated on only assigning worth to certain individuals (i.e. those who believe/act "correctly" per said religious beliefs.)

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 6118
elengil wrote:
Because elected officials should not be stating anything that is or is implied as government endorsement of any religious beliefs. Yes, they do all the time, but they shouldn't. Especially when those beliefs are predicated on only assigning worth to certain individuals (i.e. those who believe/act "correctly" per said religious beliefs.)

I understand about not implying government endorsement of religious beliefs, but what makes it 'hate?" How can something not be 'hate' in one context but is 'hate' in another?

I think this term 'hate' is bandied about carelessly and without understanding much of the time.

_________________
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 1039
Location: Small drinking village with a severe fishing problem
Quote:
hate speech
noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
"we don't tolerate any form of hate speech"

_________________
I before E except after C
Or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
Or in science and ageist, when syllables split
English is weird, but I don't give a crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline
Meanwhile...
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 15240
Location: Out on the banks
Quote:
Why is it not 'hate' if said in church or in Times Square, but might be 'hate' in the workplace and is definitely 'hate' in Congress? Is this 'hate' a legal concept


For much the same reason why a punch is an 'assault' if thrown on a subway but not in a boxing ring.

_________________
Image

“I am not so blind that I can't see darkness.”
Dangerous Beans
Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:59 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4689
Location: The other side of Michigan
Cerin wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:
Intent matters. If the speaker intended to threaten and intimidate, then the speech should be treated accordingly, regardless of the source of the specific words used.
How can someone expressing the belief that practitioners of x, y and z behaviors are going to hell possibly be seen as threatening or intimidating? News Flash: His opinion can't actually send anyone to hell. Where is the threat? What is the intimidation?

"You're going to burn in hell for that!," spoken in an angry tone of voice while leaning over the target (for example), is absolutely intimidation, especially if it's directed at someone who actually believes in God and hell. "I believe that doing x will get a person sent to hell" is an expression of belief and not (legally) a threat. Though of course a clever threatener will use this sort of language precisely to avoid that accusation. But without a mind reader, there's only so much the law can do.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 751 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group