Auggie
|
freediver wrote on Jul 4 th, 2019 at 8:05pm: Auggie wrote on Jul 4 th, 2019 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4 th, 2019 at 8:01pm: Auggie wrote on Jul 4 th, 2019 at 8:00pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4 th, 2019 at 7:58pm: Auggie wrote on Jul 4 th, 2019 at 7:52pm: freediver wrote on Jul 2 nd, 2019 at 7:05pm: It occurs to me that Yassmin is the perfect example of how freedom of speech is supposed to work, while Folau is the perfect example of how to stick your head in your rectum, create a mountain out of a molehill, and turn a man into a martyr for freedom of speech over a banal and familiar opinion.
Yassmin was rightly mocked for saying stupid things, misappropriating public funds to line her own pockets, lying about Islam, and getting hysterical about the criticism she rightly deserved. Despite having plenty of perfectly legal reasons to fire her, the ABC stood by her and refused. But she wilted under the glaring reality of what people think of her. It seemed to take her by surprise. Being an ugly black female Muslim of apparently limited intelligence and perception, she was probably accustomed to being a protected species at the ABC and SBS. She ran away from freedom of speech, while the usual apologists were trying to turn the public mockery of her into an attack on free speech, as though she should be able to do and say stupid things without anyone noticing.
Folau ran towards freedom of speech. Rather than subject him to public criticism for his opinion, the homofascists did the cowardly thing and conspired behind the scenes to make him lose his job - a move that is likely to turn out to be illegal. Then they followed this up with celebrating gofundme pulling his campaign. Both propelled Folau into the spotlight, massively increased public support for him, and allowed him to raise $2million in 2 days. Now he is likely to win the case or get a favourable settlement, all under the public eye. He said something stupid and the homofascists turned him into a hero of free speech for it.
The two cases could not be more different, yet somehow the usual apologists are now trying to use Yassmin to accuse those who support freedom of speech of hypocrisy. Perhaps they should go back and look at what was actually said - their own hysterical claims that criticising Yassmin infringed on her freedom of speech, and their hypocritical backflip on Folau. The difference between these two situations is the morality of their ideas. Folau expressed a repugnant view, whilst Yassmin expressed a non-repugnant view. Sure, the latter may not be true but if we're going into the realm of objective morals, then it is clear that Yassmin's views are objectively more moral than Folau's. Do you think that is relevant when it comes to freedom of speech? It's relevant in some cases and to a certain extent. In this situation, I personally have no compunction with Israel Folau being fired. He says gays would go to hell when they die. He should be happy that he won't go to hell then. Is it relevant in this case? Yes. Should the law take morality into account in deciding who can get fired for their religious views? When it comes to the issue of homophobia, yes.
|