University course and anti-gay Facebook post.

[woodview 10]

Just now, makapaka said:

So you think its acceptable to have a disapproving view of a persons right to  be treated equally?

 

So - for example - if someone was to say they dissaprove of black people using public transport that would be acceptable providing they didn't say anything that would be "inciting hate"?

 

 

I think it is a disgusting thing to think and say, and it would make my skin crawl hearing someone say it, but they have the right, yes. Although in that example, someone with such an extreme view would struggle to not be inciting hate.

The problem comes, as to where to stop. Inciting hate is the border line for me. Beyond that, you are stopping people stating views. Otherwise, where does what is acceptable stop? It has the potential to become a narrower and narrower envelope.

[Guest makapaka]

2 minutes ago, woodview said:

I think it is a disgusting thing to think and say, and it would make my skin crawl hearing someone say it, but they have the right, yes. Although in that example, someone with such an extreme view would struggle to not be inciting hate.

The problem comes, as to where to stop. Inciting hate is the border line for me. Beyond that, you are stopping people stating views. Otherwise, where does what is acceptable stop? It has the potential to become a narrower and narrower envelope.

Not really.

 

I'm no advocate of restricting speech but why should it be acceptable for people to voice discriminatory views?

He can say it if he likes - but there are consequences - such as a university not wishing to have a person on their course that considers discrimination of others to be an acceptable practice.

 

He can carry on saying that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin - and that they shouldn't be allowed to marry but thankfully it won't be tolerated.

 

He said that he is only entitled to express "politically correct views" - there's nothing "politically correct" about treating human beings the same regardless of their sexuality. It's just human decency.

[woodview 10]

5 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Not really.

 

I'm no advocate of restricting speech but why should it be acceptable for people to voice discriminatory views?

He can say it if he likes - but there are consequences - such as a university not wishing to have a person on their course that considers discrimination of others to be an acceptable practice.

 

He can carry on saying that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin - and that they shouldn't be allowed to marry but thankfully it won't be tolerated.

 

He said that he is only entitled to express "politically correct views" - there's nothing "politically correct" about treating human beings the same regardless of their sexuality. It's just human decency.

By your train of thought, you could say Saudi Arabia has free speech. You can criticise the monarchy, but there are consequences.

In my book that isn't free speech.

If there are 'consequences' , then by definition you are restricting it.

[MAC33 10]

He's not saying to their face what he said on Facebook and even if he had he still has a right to voice his opinion.

 

Now if he said that in his line of work as a social worker to a gay couple then maybe a warning.

 

Again,he is being penalised by the Uni for a hypothetical crime. As yet he has done nothing wrong that I can see.

 

 

It seems free speech is slowing but surely being taken away from us - just read this....

 

Health Care professionals within Australia can face legal action and be brought before their respective Boards if they question vaccine safety publicly or on social media. They can lose their licence.

Edited March 15, 2019 by MAC33

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, woodview said:

By your train of thought, you could say Saudi Arabia has free speech. You can criticise the monarchy, but there are consequences.

In my book that isn't free speech.

If there are 'consequences' , then by definition you are restricting it.

There's a clear distinction between social consequences and legal consequences though right?

1 hour ago, MAC33 said:

He's not saying to their face what he said on Facebook and even if he had he still has a right to voice his opinion.

 

Now if he said that in his line of work as a social worker to a gay couple then maybe a warning.

 

Again,he is being penalised by the Uni for a hypothetical crime. As yet he has done nothing wrong that I can see.

 

 

It seems free speech is slowing but surely being taken away from us - just read this....

 

Health Care professionals within Australia can face legal action and be brought before their respective Boards if they question vaccine safety publicly or on social media. They can lose their licence.

He does have a right to voice his opinion.  He doesn't have a right to be a social worker who is expected to not have discriminatory views which he clearly holds.

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

So you think its acceptable to have a disapproving view of a persons right to  be treated equally?

 

So - for example - if someone was to say they dissaprove of black people using public transport that would be acceptable providing they didn't say anything that would be "inciting hate"?

 

 

Acceptable in that they are free to say it with no legal consequence.

But if it were someone standing for local council then it would have consequences at the ballot box.  If they were an equality officer for a company it would have consequences as it brings into question their ability to perform their job.  If they were a student on a social care course then consequences as it brings into question their ability to meet the ethical standards required by the course and the profession after it.

4 hours ago, Hots on said:

The government should intervene in the universities of this country. No obnoxious student mobs enforcing "no platform policies" to views they don't like, no "safe spaces" etc. They should be politically and ideologically neutral places for all.

I think the universities should go ahead and host these offensive people.  Then film the empty lecture hall they are supposed to address as the students want no part of listening to such offensive drivel.

6 hours ago, woodview said:

Well, we don't know that. I disagree with his views, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. He was doing a Masters, so he's not dim. Tolerance of people's views and lifestyle cuts both ways.

Dim enough to post something like that on social media though.

[woodview 10]

13 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

There's a clear distinction between social consequences and legal consequences though right?

 

Social consequences will happen. You have friends based on what you do and say for example.

The 'consequences' being discussed are generally education and work based though, aren't they? I'm sure you are well up for suppression of opinions that don't match yours.

I take it as a consequence of living in a democracy. People say thongs I dont like or disagree with completely, but I accept that and am glad we currently live in a society where it can happen, currently at least.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I think that it needs to noted that the student social worker wasn't thrown off their course for having the views, but posting the views on social media in a way that they were easily identified.

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, woodview said:

By your train of thought, you could say Saudi Arabia has free speech. You can criticise the monarchy, but there are consequences.

In my book that isn't free speech.

If there are 'consequences' , then by definition you are restricting it.

No it’s not the same.

 

hes advocating discrimination of a particular group of people based on their sexuality - not complaining about the government.

[woodview 10]

28 minutes ago, makapaka said:

No it’s not the same.

 

hes advocating discrimination of a particular group of people based on their sexuality - not complaining about the government.

He's against gay marriage. He is fully entitled to express that view with fear of 'consequences' .

I disagree with his view. But I disagree and fear the views of people who want to silence voices they don't like. That has never, ever ended well.

[Halibut 12]

19 minutes ago, woodview said:

He's against gay marriage. He is fully entitled to express that view with fear of 'consequences' .

I disagree with his view. But I disagree and fear the views of people who want to silence voices they don't like. That has never, ever ended well.

Not if he wants to be a social worker he isn't. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Halibut

[Guest makapaka]

21 minutes ago, woodview said:

He's against gay marriage. He is fully entitled to express that view with fear of 'consequences' .

I disagree with his view. But I disagree and fear the views of people who want to silence voices they don't like. That has never, ever ended well.

No - he should expect consequences from openly discriminating a group of people.

 

thats is what the consequences are for - nothing else.

[woodview 10]

Just now, makapaka said:

No - he should expect consequences from openly discriminating a group of people.

 

thats is what the consequences are for - nothing else.

What if your views become those that are deemed not acceptable for freely expressing?

There's no two ways about it, limiting peoples right of expression is wrong. Talking about 'consequences' is equally disturbing. do you actually believe in liberty at all???

8 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Not if he wants to be a social worker he isn't. 

What other jobs would you bar him from, specifically? Since a high proportion of the population is LGBT, maybe he shouldn't carry out any work where he comes into contact with the public?