Rugby Australia Fires Israel Folau for "contentious online posts"

[Anonymous]

We have seen more than a little of this sort of thing here in the US, where pro athletes are not permitted complete freedom of expression.  Sometimes the curtailment is by the team, more often by the league.  In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  



It seems to me that in a free society people should not be protected from such expressions, and should be intelligent enough to consider the source and the merits.  Perhaps I expect too much.

[Wazzzup]

 In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  

Wha?  Unlawful? LOL When did this happen?  



If you're comparing this to the NFL stuff you are comparing apples and doorknobs.  The NFL players were doing their stuff on the field, not on social media  on their own time, HUGE difference.

[Bricktop]

We have seen more than a little of this sort of thing here in the US, where pro athletes are not permitted complete freedom of expression.  Sometimes the curtailment is by the team, more often by the league.  In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  



It seems to me that in a free society people should not be protected from such expressions, and should be intelligent enough to consider the source and the merits.  Perhaps I expect too much.

Precisely.



It is even more aggravating when it is clear that sporting associations here are saying to themselves "this is what happens in America".

[Anonymous]

 In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  

Wha?  Unlawful? LOL When did this happen?  



If you're comparing this to the NFL stuff you are comparing apples and doorknobs.  The NFL players were doing their stuff on the field, not on social media  on their own time, HUGE difference.

I don't see the distinction you're raising about "on the job" vs. "social media" as being significant.  A lot of the NFL protesters did so on the field with the blessing of their team's owners.



I was referring to 18 U.S. Code § 227 which criminalizes actions of elected federal officials who seek to influence the hiring and firing decisions of private entities.  And I'm aware that many pundits, including the liberal WaPo, have scoffed at this idea because the intent of this law requires the interference to be solely based on "partisan political affiliation" which is Congress's polite term for "party membership."  



However, since it's Saturday night I'll put on my Internet Lawyer uniform and you can do the same if you like, but I'm only gonna make one run at this and not come back to it because I don't want to derail the thread into US politics.  



The term "partisan political affiliation" does enjoy a lot of customary use, but I'm unaware it's ever been given a legal definition by statute and only a cloudy one (at best) in case law, simply because parties are extra-constitutional creatures and nobody wants to talk about them in court if they can help it.  



Consequently, since the president (1) called Kaemp a son of a bitch in public speeches, (2) tweeted that he and others should be fired, and (3) specifically took personal credit for the fact that Kaemp ended up jobless and unemployable, I'll bet a bunch of money there are attorneys out there who'd be quite happy to sue in the Ninth District where Kaemp and his former team happen to live.  And they might get somewhere with it, the Ninth being a huge blister on Trump's ass every chance it gets.



There is additionally the issue that the president swore a constitutional oath to "faithfully" exercise the duties of his office, and while this is more a matter for Congressional oversight than it is for lawsuits, I'm also not aware that the exact legal or constitutional definition of "faithfully" has been authoritatively sorted out.



That's my shot, pal.  Knock your socks off.

[Anonymous]

 In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  

Wha?  Unlawful? LOL When did this happen?  



If you're comparing this to the NFL stuff you are comparing apples and doorknobs.  The NFL players were doing their stuff on the field, not on social media  on their own time, HUGE difference.

I agree there's no analogy between this snd the spoiled brat kneeling NFL players.

[Wazzzup]

 In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  

Wha?  Unlawful? LOL When did this happen?  



If you're comparing this to the NFL stuff you are comparing apples and doorknobs.  The NFL players were doing their stuff on the field, not on social media  on their own time, HUGE difference.

I don't see the distinction you're raising about "on the job" vs. "social media" as being significant.  A lot of the NFL protesters did so on the field with the blessing of their team's owners.



I was referring to 18 U.S. Code § 227 which criminalizes actions of elected federal officials who seek to influence the hiring and firing decisions of private entities.  And I'm aware that many pundits, including the liberal WaPo, have scoffed at this idea because the intent of this law requires the interference to be solely based on "partisan political affiliation" which is Congress's polite term for "party membership."  



However, since it's Saturday night I'll put on my Internet Lawyer uniform and you can do the same if you like, but I'm only gonna make one run at this and not come back to it because I don't want to derail the thread into US politics.  



The term "partisan political affiliation" does enjoy a lot of customary use, but I'm unaware it's ever been given a legal definition by statute and only a cloudy one (at best) in case law, simply because parties are extra-constitutional creatures and nobody wants to talk about them in court if they can help it.  



Consequently, since the president (1) called Kaemp a son of a bitch in public speeches, (2) tweeted that he and others should be fired, and (3) specifically took personal credit for the fact that Kaemp ended up jobless and unemployable, I'll bet a bunch of money there are attorneys out there who'd be quite happy to sue in the Ninth District where Kaemp and his former team happen to live.  And they might get somewhere with it, the Ninth being a huge blister on Trump's ass every chance it gets.



There is additionally the issue that the president swore a constitutional oath to "faithfully" exercise the duties of his office, and while this is more a matter for Congressional oversight than it is for lawsuits, I'm also not aware that the exact legal or constitutional definition of "faithfully" has been authoritatively sorted out.



That's my shot, pal.  Knock your socks off.

Firstly Its not Kaemp its Kaepernick, and he was never fired.  NFL teams just didn't want to hire him. (see reasons below)  



Ironically in a free speech thread you're against a presidents right to free speech.  A president just like anyone can voice an opinion, "that guy should be fired" is merely expressing an opinion and is a long way from threats of "fire him or I will retaliate against you" which is what that law is about.  (IF not then Barack Obama needs to be charged with jury tampering for saying "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago")



NFL teams didn't want to hire Kaepernick back because A He wasn't any good anymore, and B because they didn't want needless distractions that ruin team performance.  Kaepernicks behavior also impacted business as ticket sales dropped considerably because of his ON THE FIELD shenanigans.



It had nothing to do with Trump.



The NFL thing and this soccer player are nothing alike.  I think you're trying to say "the right does it too" when it comes to free speech.  But if so the ratio is about a thousand to one.  



The left were once the biggest defenders of free speech.  Now they are the greatest threat to it.

[Wazzzup]

 In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  

Wha?  Unlawful? LOL When did this happen?  



If you're comparing this to the NFL stuff you are comparing apples and doorknobs.  The NFL players were doing their stuff on the field, not on social media  on their own time, HUGE difference.

I agree there's no analogy between this snd the spoiled brat kneeling NFL players.

Yep. ac_drinks   While I think the NFL copbashing racial BS is stupid, I would have fully supported the players right to get on twitter or facebook etc and voice their opinions.  It was the fact that they were doing it on the field that I objected to.



BTW during the NFL thing I saw multiple stories about cops getting fired for criticizing black lives matter on social media.  That was the only real affront to free speech in the whole affair.

[Anonymous]

 In some cases, the president of the country has attempted to meddle and directly intervene in such matters, in ways that are sometimes patently unlawful.  

Wha?  Unlawful? LOL When did this happen?  



If you're comparing this to the NFL stuff you are comparing apples and doorknobs.  The NFL players were doing their stuff on the field, not on social media  on their own time, HUGE difference.

I agree there's no analogy between this snd the spoiled brat kneeling NFL players.

Yep. ac_drinks   While I think the NFL copbashing racial BS is stupid, I would have fully supported the players right to get on twitter or facebook etc and voice their opinions.  It was the fact that they were doing it on the field that I objected to.



BTW during the NFL thing I saw multiple stories about cops getting fired for criticizing black lives matter on social media.  That was the only real affront to free speech in the whole affair.

I wouldn't like if I paid to watch a hockey game and players forced their politics on me like Colin Kaepernick did.

[caskur]

To be fair, his tweet was a bit silly and pointless. And I sure disagree with it's religious sentiment.



But he has a right to that view.



Stifling speech is the first step to tyranny, in my view.

Spot the phuck on.

[caskur]

Whilst an atheist, sacking a man for quoting a biblical passage is draconian in my view.

The Gay Lobby will be demanding Bible burnings next week....





It certainly is a disproportionate sentencing to be sacked for writing a mere quote.

[Anonymous]

The article stated,  "an independent panel found the 30-year-old fullback guilty of a high-level breach of the players' code of conduct for his contentious post in mid-April."



And, "It also followed a warning Folau received from Rugby Australia last year over a social media post that drew criticism from some rugby followers, including a major sponsor of the game."



So, the question is if the players' code violates freedom of speech and religious expression. That's something a court will have to decide.

[caskur]

Yes, he would be vindicated imo.

[Anonymous]

Yes, he would be vindicated imo.

I hope so.

[Bricktop]

I think the Rugby administration have started a fire they can't put out.

[Anonymous]

I think the Rugby administration have started a fire they can't put out.

It seems it's far from over.