Also in the news

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Israel Folau sacked: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2019/may/17/israel-folau-v-rugby-australia-social-media-decision-live

 

I don't know if anyone has been following this case but it has some interesting implications regarding free speech and social media posts.

I have been following this - not sure if it’s a free speech issue, though. 

 

I saw it as more as a company sacking an employee for saying things publicly that could harm the business. 

 

I’d sack one of my employees if they posted views that grossly offended a group of people and brought negativity publicity to my business. 

 

I’m sure ‘Thou shalt not be a complete twat and expect to still be employed’ is in their t&c’s somewhere!

[David Guiza]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Israel Folau sacked: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2019/may/17/israel-folau-v-rugby-australia-social-media-decision-live

 

I don't know if anyone has been following this case but it has some interesting implications regarding free speech and social media posts.

Freedom is speech is 'the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint or legal penalty' and I don't think that has been inflicted. He is still allowed to make his bizarre comments, but his club don't want to be associated with him or his beliefs. Unfortunately for him he is in a profession that is in the public eye, more so than most, and thus he has to adhere to a stricter moral compass.

 

It's not too dissimilar from when we got rid of Wayne Brown prior to the Cardiff game a few years ago, he has the right to state which party he voted for and supports and LCFC had the right dismiss him because his views were not in keeping with those of the football club. 

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, Milo said:

I have been following this - not sure if it’s a free speech issue, though. 

 

I saw it as more as a company sacking an employee for saying things publicly that could harm the business. 

 

I’d sack one of my employees if they posted views that grossly offended a group of people and brought negativity publicity to my business. 

 

I’m sure ‘Thou shalt not be a complete twat and expect to still be employed’ is in their t&c’s somewhere!

 

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Freedom is speech is 'the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint or legal penalty' and I don't think that has been inflicted. He is still allowed to make his bizarre comments, but his club don't want to be associated with him or his beliefs. Unfortunately for him he is in a profession that is in the public eye, more so than most, and thus he has to adhere to a stricter moral compass.

 

It's not too dissimilar from when we got rid of Wayne Brown prior to the Cardiff game a few years ago, he has the right to state which party he voted for and supports and LCFC had the right dismiss him because his views were not in keeping with those of the football club. 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not defending him or agreeing with what he posted.

 

However, he didn't post anything illegal, he posted that certain behaviour would lead to 'Hell'. I feel just a little uncomfortable that one's employer can censure that freedom of expression within the context of a religious belief because, while it might seem a fairly straightforward decision in this case, maybe it's the thin end of a wedge that ultimately restricts free speech.

[ealingfox]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not defending him or agreeing with what he posted.

 

However, he didn't post anything illegal, he posted that certain behaviour would lead to 'Hell'. I feel just a little uncomfortable that one's employer can censure that freedom of expression within the context of a religious belief because, while it might seem a fairly straightforward decision in this case, maybe it's the thin end of a wedge that ultimately restricts free speech.

 

Legality has nothing to do with it, he hasn't been arrested.

 

There's a contract and a code of conduct with his signature on it, and if being a raging homophobe is in breach of that code of conduct then I don't know how you can expect any other outcome. He was free to say what he said, that same freedom now extends to his employer, and he's free to face the consequences. I'm not sure where the confusion is here.

[David Guiza]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not defending him or agreeing with what he posted.

 

However, he didn't post anything illegal, he posted that certain behaviour would lead to 'Hell'. I feel just a little uncomfortable that one's employer can censure that freedom of expression within the context of a religious belief because, while it might seem a fairly straightforward decision in this case, maybe it's the thin end of a wedge that ultimately restricts free speech.

Oh yeah, I assumed you were playing devils advocate in this situation. 

 

It is a difficult one, were no action to have been taken then it sets a dangerous precedent also. It's difficult to draw the line between being overly sensitive and allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to hide behind the freedom of speech and expression when making large groups of people feel uncomfortable and intimidated. The vast majority of us know what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable to say at our places of work, and he knows that too because he'd be warned in the past I understand.  

 

I think ultimately, from my point of view, as he's still free to take up employment elsewhere and say whatever he wants about his religious beliefs or otherwise then it's not an infringement on his freedom of speech. Who knows, if he's that committed to it then maybe he can become Australia's answer to David Icke! 

 

 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Legality has nothing to do with it, he hasn't been arrested.

 

There's a contract and a code of conduct with his signature on it, and if being a raging homophobe is in breach of that code of conduct then I don't know how you can expect any other outcome. He was free to say what he said, that same freedom now extends to his employer, and he's free to face the consequences. I'm not sure where the confusion is here.

 

OK, maybe the homophobic content is muddying the water: let's take out the reference to homosexuality and leave everything else (adulterers, drunks, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators). Would it still be fair to sack him?

[Milo]

23 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

OK, maybe the homophobic content is muddying the water: let's take out the reference to homosexuality and leave everything else (adulterers, drunks, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators). Would it still be fair to sack him?

Not sure you can take the homophobia out of it, though, as that what he was sacked for. 

 

If a staff member spouts off with offensive gibberish I would expect them to be warned. If they ignore the warning and do it again then sacking them seems entirely reasonable to me ?‍♂️ 

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Milo said:

Not sure you can take the homophobia out of it, though, as that what he was sacked for. 

 

If a staff member spouts off with offensive gibberish I would expect them to be warned. If they ignore the warning and do it again then sacking them seems entirely reasonable to me ?‍♂️ 

 

Just for the sake of argument, let's do so.

 

Do you think the rest of what he said is acceptable?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Just for the sake of argument, let's do so.

 

Do you think the rest of what he said is acceptable?

I’ve known people disciplined for saying ‘shit day at work today’ on Facebook. Because they’ve also filled in a line of where they work at previous point.

 

Im yet to read the details of this case, so my opinion is not informed but it seems like he has had enough chances to refrain from doing it and really has nobody to blame but himself.

 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’ve known people disciplined for saying ‘shit day at work today’ on Facebook. Because they’ve also filled in a line of where they work at previous point.

 

Im yet to read the details of this case, so my opinion is not informed but it seems like he has had enough chances to refrain from doing it and really has nobody to blame but himself.

 

 

As I said, this isn't about defending him or his views.

 

What I find worthy of discussion is that your employer can control your behaviour outside of work; what he said was distasteful, of course, but he didn't break any laws in saying it. We already have employers dictating to us that we can't take drugs outside of work; now, if this is upheld, our employer can dictate what we can and can't say, even though it is legal to say it. In this particular case, he doesn't attract much in the way of sympathy because of the homophobic content, which is why I say imagine 'what if' for a moment and take that out. Presumably, his words were offensive to drunks and adulterers too. If we uphold the principle that an employer can dictate our behaviour outside of work, I suggest it's the thin end of a wedge we may end up regretting.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As I said, this isn't about defending him or his views.

 

What I find worthy of discussion is that your employer can control your behaviour outside of work; what he said was distasteful, of course, but he didn't break any laws in saying it. We already have employers dictating to us that we can't take drugs outside of work; now, if this is upheld, our employer can dictate what we can and can't say, even though it is legal to say it. In this particular case, he doesn't attract much in the way of sympathy because of the homophobic content, which is why I say imagine 'what if' for a moment and take that out. Presumably, his words were offensive to drunks and adulterers too. If we uphold the principle that an employer can dictate our behaviour outside of work, I suggest it's the thin end of a wedge we may end up regretting.

You do have to draw the line somewhere though in my opinion, my example is over the top but in this case, if he was given fair warning then I struggle to sympathise.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You do have to draw the line somewhere though in my opinion, my example is over the top but in this case, if he was given fair warning then I struggle to sympathise.

 

Kind of my point.

 

Once you establish something as being OK in principle, where do you draw the line? And who gets to decide where it's drawn?

[Milo]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Kind of my point.

 

Once you establish something as being OK in principle, where do you draw the line? And who gets to decide where it's drawn?

Personally, I don’t really give a fvck what staff do outside of work. (Apart from public posting of offensive material, obvs). As long as they do what they are paid for whilst at work then I’m happy. 

 

Saying that, I wouldn’t really want to board a plane where the pilot has just come off a 12 hour crack binge. 

 

Some companies have stricter codes of conduct than others. If you don’t like their terms then work for someone else. No one is forcing people to work for companies that conduct random drug testing. 

 

Drugs aren’t necessarily good or bad, but they do change behaviour. This could be an issue for some employers. 

 

No different than some business allowing staff to wear jeans and other require suits, imo. 

Edited 17 May 2019 by Milo

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Milo said:

Personally, I don’t really give a fvck what staff do outside of work. (Apart from public posting of offensive material, obvs). As long as they do what they are paid for whilst at work then I’m happy. 

 

Saying that, I wouldn’t really want to board a plane where the pilot has just come off a 12 hour crack binge. 

 

Some companies have stricter codes of conduct than others. If you don’t like their terms then work for someone else. No one is forcing people to work for companies that conduct random drug testing. 

 

Drugs aren’t necessarily good or bad, but they do change behaviour. This could be an issue for some employers. 

 

No different than some business allowing staff to wear jeans and other require suits, imo. 

 

Take the principle to its logical conclusion.

 

Are we going to allow companies to say we can't drink alcohol outside of work? Smoke? Eat unhealthy food?

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Kind of my point.

 

Once you establish something as being OK in principle, where do you draw the line? And who gets to decide where it's drawn?

Fair enough, but I guess that comes down to the agreed contract. If there is something that you feel is unfair then you don’t sign it. Companies will not cut themselves short and if they can’t recruit, their principles will soon change.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Fair enough, but I guess that comes down to the agreed contract. If there is something that you feel is unfair then you don’t sign it. Companies will not cut themselves short and if they can’t recruit, their principles will soon change.

 

And if it becomes the norm and all companies do it? What then?

[Strokes]

Just now, Buce said:

 

And if it becomes the norm and all companies do it? What then?

Then it’s deemed acceptable.....

Dont get me wrong buce, I understand your concerns but I believe we have more control than you think. It’s just people are prepared to be dictated too for that bit extra. That is their prerogative and if they set the bar to a point where others feel they have to do the same, then they deserve what they get.

Its not something I personally worry about, as I slag my employer off to their faces and if they don’t like my opinion they can shove it up their arse. 

Social media is problem, the sooner people realise this the better we will all be.

[Milo]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

And if it becomes the norm and all companies do it? What then?

Well I promise that I won’t do it with my company. 

 

Come and work for me - we can get stoned at the morning finance meeting and then head off for a few beers at lunch. 

 

Happy daze ?

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Kind of my point.

 

Once you establish something as being OK in principle, where do you draw the line? And who gets to decide where it's drawn?

This is an interesting case for sure.  I think that in most lines of work a person's social media pages should be completely irrelevant to their employers barring any behaviour that would be illegal anyway.  That said there are certain careers which naturally lift a person into the public eye making them a role model for thousands or even more and so anybody going into such a profession - as we've rediscovered recently with Hamza - should expect to have their social media output scrutinised far more closely than your average desk jockey or retail assistant, most professional sports fall into this category.  Any employer in a field like this will surely have a policy in the company rulebook covering social media use and behaviour outside of work in general so if you break those rules then you shouldn't be surprised to be punished for it, especially if you've been warned about this behaviour previously.

 

With that said, the next question is "was he wrong"?  With regards to gay people going to hell there's a whole ethical, theological and deontological debate to be had there but to cut it short I personally disagree strongly with that notion  Was it a sack-worthy demonstration of his opinion?  I don't know, if one of my colleagues posted it I would be shocked and would definitely add them to the whack job list (presuming they weren't on it previously) but for me the post isn't vicious or inciting enough to be considered hate speech... but then I'm not gay nor do I follow Rugby that much so I may take a different view if I felt it was aimed at me or my gay, Rugby loving child.. or indeed if I ran a sport's administrative body fielding complaints from our lgbt customers.

 

Tl;dr: Companies should have their own policies on this if necessary and within reason; Israel comes across a bit crazy; I wouldn't personally be upset with his post however I would respond if enough people made it clear that they are.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Then it’s deemed acceptable.....

Dont get me wrong buce, I understand your concerns but I believe we have more control than you think. It’s just people are prepared to be dictated too for that bit extra. That is their prerogative and if they set the bar to a point where others feel they have to do the same, then they deserve what they get.

Its not something I personally worry about, as I slag my employer off to their faces and if they don’t like my opinion they can shove it up their arse. 

Social media is problem, the sooner people realise this the better we will all be.

5

 

At the moment.

 

But as soon as we consent to losing one freedom, we risk losing them all.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Milo said:

Well I promise that I won’t do it with my company. 

 

Come and work for me - we can get stoned at the morning finance meeting and then head off for a few beers at lunch. 

 

Happy daze ?

 

That's a kind offer, mate, but I work for no one but myself.

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Take the principle to its logical conclusion.

 

Are we going to allow companies to say we can't drink alcohol outside of work? Smoke? Eat unhealthy food?

 

Some employers already limit this to some extent. I presume that LCFC players would be disciplined if they were seen smoking, necking multiple pints and chomping kebabs the night before a match? 

 

Surely, what is acceptable outside work (be that opinions expressed or food/drink consumed) depends on your role - particularly whether there is a public representation aspect to your job?

 

In most jobs, it would be perfectly OK, in your free time, to drink, eat kebabs or say gay people, drunks and fornicators are going to hell. People might think you were a prat if they heard about it, but so long as you weren't committing crimes or causing clear offence to colleagues or customers at work, it wouldn't be a disciplinary issue. But it's different if your role involves being a public representative:

- OK for you to stagger out from Oadby Wetherspoon's to the kebab shop on a Friday night if you feel like it.....not OK for Jamie Vardy

- OK for a Tory party official to announce that "Britain needs a Tory majority govt".....not OK for Corbyn to announce that

- OK for some random Forest fan to say that all LCFC fans are scum.....not OK for Brendan Rodgers to announce that

- OK for you to say that Leicester is a dump.....not OK for the head of the local tourist office to announce that

 

If Vardy, Corbyn, Rodgers or the tourist office bloke want to exercise those freedoms, they can do so - and face the consequences in terms of disciplinary action or, ultimately, dismissal. Same with this rugby bod.

 

I appreciate that there is scope for abuse - employers imposing unreasonable restrictions - and that should be fought. But a public figure effectively abusing part of his employer's target audience doesn't cross that line.

 

The case of Hoddle's sacking as England manager 20 years ago for his comments about disability as karma was similar, wasn't it? Have we inevitably lost all freedom of speech as a result?

[urban.spaceman]

 

I find it a bit weird that his post is being characterised as exclusively homophobic when it’s literally being targeted at a wide range of people. I tick more than one box on his sinister shitlist of reasons that Jesus loves you but would happily send you to hell if you don’t love him back. (Which poses the question, why don’t you make yourself a bit more ****ing believable then?!)

 

Really though, I’m a free speech absolutist because I want religious lunatics like him to expose himself. (Not like that)

[davieG]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

OK for you to say that Leicester is a dump.....not OK for the head of the local tourist office to announce that

That's why I didn't get the job!

[MC Prussian]

Free speech to everyone*, even if it does or could offend you or somebody else. Limited speech has a rather negative effect on (crude) humour, a society becomes stale without being challenged.

 

*Sole exceptions for speech that incites or produces violence against a person or a group.