Freedom of Speech Part 2: Margaret Court and gay rights

[stui magpie]

It's been well speculated over the years that a number of professional tennis players have been lesbians.

Whether that prominence is greater than what you'd find in the general public or even relevant is another matter entirely.

On the former I'd say possible, on the latter I'd say no.

factual, yes. relevant, No.

It was also reported that a large number of the players in the new AFLW comp were Lesbian, apparently the majority although that was only supposition.

Relevant in any way? Not really unless you're looking for some correlation between lesbianism and athletic prowess.

Might it become an issue if young straight girls think twice about sharing a locker room with a bunch of gay women? maybe, but I doubt it considering how the current generation thinks

[HAL]

No really, it's true.

[swoop42]

I always encourage young women to be bisexual.

[stui magpie]

On freedom of speech and consequences, this is an interesting one from where freedom of speech is actually in the constitution.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/enter ... d=38190394

Over stepped the mark, copped a whack, apologised for it. Impact on future employment prospects uncertain, but when you work in the entertainment business you walk a line and have zero security anyway.

[sixpoints]

Now Margaret thinks pro tennis is "full of lesbians" and transgender children are the work "of the devil" and the pro gay lobby is brainwashing us like the "Nazis and Communists".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itler.html

Hey Margaret.....just shut up.

Good tennis player, but a froot loop of a person.

So ..... let's go to Christian 20 twenty radio looking for a story

Talk about cheap gutter journalism. Dud they expect to hear people promoting gay marriage? Laughable.

Is it gutter journalism writing about what this woman says when she was on a radio show? They were simply citing what she said. So if you hear anything on Christian radio, you're not supposed to report on it because it would be "gutter journalism" to do so?
It seems to be that the right leaning types will defend her no matter what (free speech) and criticise everyone else (they are bullies, gutter journalism etc)
You free speech warriors confuse the heck out of me! You now don't think reporters should write about what people actually say!!
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/t ... whfbj.html

[David]

It's occurred to me for a long time that a lot of right-wing people don't care about free speech nearly as much as they say they do.

Exhibit A: the government.

[Mugwump]

^ if you broaden that to "a lot of people on both sides of politics do not care as much about free speech as they say they do", and you will be correct.

Court is clearly a bit of a religious nutter. Other people are SJW and identitarian nutters. They're allowed to say whatever they like - including opening about how other people choose to live - as long as they do not urge someone to break the law. They also entitled to have their other achievements recognised regardless of what they say. It's really not that hard.

[Pies4shaw]

No one here is suggesting she has no right to say stupid things. The issue seems to be whether free speech entails letting stupid, ignorant views deliberately made in public fora stand unchallenged or whether expressing concern about their stupidity and ignorance is "bullying".

[Skids]

Funny, I can't recall the same uproar when this was brought up 3 months ago.


Mr Dutton said it was unacceptable for chief executives like Mr Joyce to use their company's brand to campaign for same-sex marriage.

"It is unacceptable that people would use companies and the money of publicly listed companies to throw their weight around," he said. - Can't argue with that.

"If Alan Joyce and any other CEO wants to campaign on this or any other issue in their own time and on their own dime, good luck to them." - Definitely.

"Don't use an iconic brand and the might of a multi-billion-dollar business on issues best left to the judgements of individuals and elected decision-makers." - Fair enough.

"I'd prefer publicly listed companies stick to their knitting and that is delivering the services for their customers and providing a return for their shareholders." - who couldn't agree with that?

Mr Dutton said many of Australia's largest corporations were being bullied into supporting policies by advocacy groups, fearing a public boycott of their services or products. - Is that the way we really want things to be?


"Some companies are morally coerced into supporting campaigns in fear of being extorted by an online social media push to boycott their product and it is simply unconscionable," he said. - shameful behaviour.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop seemingly disagreed, and said Australia was a democracy where free speech should be protected.

"People are free to take part in public debates, and this is an issue that I'm sure will be the subject of public debate for some time," she said.

"And so, if chief executives believe that it's in the interests of their company to collaborate on a public statement, then they're free to do so."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-18/q ... sm/8366306

* Just for clarity, the underlined bits are my 2 bobs worth (is that ok David?)

[watt price tully]

Funny, I can't recall the same uproar when this was brought up 3 months ago.


Mr Dutton said it was unacceptable for chief executives like Mr Joyce to use their company's brand to campaign for same-sex marriage.

......

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-18/q ... sm/8366306

Unusually, you're quite correct. It does deserve it's own piece. But some of us have lives.

Dutton has always been a nasty piece of extremist right wing work. He has been caught out lying about Manus on so many occasions it ain't funny. He is the parliamentary face for undertakers & the extreme right (does their bidding) but we can't nail them all.

But you've inspired me to make a new thread

[swoop42]

Dutton is a conservative Christian and uses his political position to push personal agendas.

He's also a cock.

[Skids]

Unusually, you're quite correct. It does deserve it's own piece. But some of us have lives.

I guess the result of an achillies tear 12 months ago and then, just as my recovery was almost complete, a pretty bad back injury in December has seen become a bit of an internet junky.

I'm well on the road to recovery now though and fly back to work tomorrow.

[Skids]

[Tannin]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

Having said that (and meant it) I find Martina Navratilova's view in the Age today persuasive.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/a ... whuyx.html

[David]

There's something seriously NQR with Dutton. Abbott is a terrible politician but seems like a guy you could have a beer with; Dutton seems like a good case study for a Hannah Arendt book.