World Rugby wants Marler explanation

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35837685

whocares wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

606v2 always on top of diversity and inclusiveness

I know - we even let a French person in!

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back.  Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black.  If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant.  But it was the context.  What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra?  None, unless attempting to rile or upset.  Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think).  But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language.  So was he wrong?  Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

I get the sneaky feeling you know the answer and are trying to do the whole 'not on a rugby forum' thing, but I'll play along: they are soccer players. Former English Premiership and current international players. Famous in some parts.

I genuinely havent heard of either of them, but when I got Cyril's reply I also went into the realms of 'sneaky feeling', but being the true gentleman that i am I respectfully thanked him and moved on.

If I wasnt so lazy i would have googled them up and probably, as you say, found out that they are soccer players.

So what is it to be, is rugby to be a game where we pride ourselves on the respect we have for the opposition and officials, or is it to be a game when you can make a racial slur (ok I get some people don't see it as that) and get away with it because it was in the heat of the moment. You can't have it both ways.

cakeordeath wrote:So what is it to be, is rugby to be a game where we pride ourselves on the respect we have for the opposition and officials, or is it to be a game when you can make a racial slur (ok I get some people don't see it as that) and get away with it because it was in the heat of the moment. You can't have it both ways.

Bet Marler never says that again.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

whocares wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

606v2 always on top of diversity and inclusiveness

I know - we even let a French person in!

Presumably if the vote goes the "wrong way" in June we have to kick him out?

lostinwales wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:So what is it to be, is rugby to be a game where we pride ourselves on the respect we have for the opposition and officials, or is it to be a game when you can make a racial slur (ok I get some people don't see it as that) and get away with it because it was in the heat of the moment. You can't have it both ways.

Bet Marler never says that again.

Unless it's in the heat of the moment....

5 pages of repeated sh!te in just over 2 hours since the OP was posted...

Is this a record..

No9 wrote:5 pages of repeated sh!te in just over 2 hours since the OP was posted...

Is this a record..

Have you never been on a Scottish thread??

I prefer not to use the term 'ginger'.

CopperTop gets the job done without the whole 'ginger' thing.

And no I'm not personally, but a lot of my family are.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back.  Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black.  If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant.  But it was the context.  What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra?  None, unless attempting to rile or upset.  Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think).  But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language.  So was he wrong?  Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

I get the sneaky feeling you know the answer and are trying to do the whole 'not on a rugby forum' thing, but I'll play along: they are soccer players. Former English Premiership and current international players. Famous in some parts.

I genuinely havent heard of either of them, but when I got Cyril's reply I also went into the realms of 'sneaky feeling', but being the true gentleman that i am I respectfully thanked him and moved on.

If I wasnt so lazy i would have googled them up and probably, as you say, found out that they are soccer players.

Googling was going to be my next comment, had you said you didn't know who they were!!!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

No9 wrote:5 pages of repeated sh!te in just over 2 hours since the OP was posted...

Is this a record..

Have you never been on a Scottish thread??

The difference is that Scottish threads are funny.

TrailApe wrote:I prefer not to use the term 'ginger'.

CopperTop gets the job done without the whole 'ginger' thing.

And no I'm not personally, but a lot of my family are.

I believe you have to call them strawberry blonde now. Just ask their spokesperson.....

cakeordeath wrote:So what is it to be, is rugby to be a game where we pride ourselves on the respect we have for the opposition and officials, or is it to be a game when you can make a racial slur (ok I get some people don't see it as that) and get away with it because it was in the heat of the moment. You can't have it both ways.

but not everyone agrees with you that that is the true situation here, and that there are other alternatives to be considered.

lostinwales wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

No9 wrote:5 pages of repeated sh!te in just over 2 hours since the OP was posted...

Is this a record..

Have you never been on a Scottish thread??

The difference is that Scottish threads are funny tragic.

Fixed that for you

RDW_Scotland wrote:

No9 wrote:5 pages of repeated sh!te in just over 2 hours since the OP was posted...

Is this a record..

Have you never been on a Scottish thread??

TrailApe wrote:I prefer not to use the term 'ginger'.

CopperTop gets the job done without the whole 'ginger' thing.

And no I'm not personally, but a lot of my family are.

Yeah I don't use the word ginger either. Daywalker is much more useful.

Thank you south park

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 gypsies are not a race in my opinion.

Hey Black boy! Would that be that bad? He is black. It's descriptive. It's like if I called hey you! English boy!

Depends on the individual surely whether they see it as an insult and the way it is said.

Someone might find the "boy" more offensive. Also some people get offended about almost anything. Can't please everyone.

I am not supporting Marler's comments - my primary point are that this should have been dealt with already and there are far worse things he could have done or said.

Doesn't make it right - but warrant - a week of media coverage? No definitely not.

The coverage comes as it wasn't dealt with very well.

The media exacerbate the situation.

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back.  Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black.  If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant.  But it was the context.  What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra?  None, unless attempting to rile or upset.  Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think).  But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language.  So was he wrong?  Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

I get the sneaky feeling you know the answer and are trying to do the whole 'not on a rugby forum' thing, but I'll play along: they are soccer players. Former English Premiership and current international players. Famous in some parts.

I genuinely havent heard of either of them, but when I got Cyril's reply I also went into the realms of 'sneaky feeling', but being the true gentleman that i am I respectfully thanked him and moved on.

If I wasnt so lazy i would have googled them up and probably, as you say, found out that they are soccer players.

Googling was going to be my next comment, had you said you didn't know who they were!!!

Asking who they are, and saying I dont know who they are, isnt exactly a million miles apart.

Hoonercat wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

Your skin is reasonable thick, but what if there had been someone next to you with a more sensitive nature, for arguments' sake an overweight woman who received verbal abuse from the same person about her weight and was left very distraught. Why should the crime against you be deemed more serious than that against the woman, given that you have the ability to shrug it off?

It's a different example. I said I couldn't have cared less if Marler made a comment on Lee's appearance because professional tighthead props generally aren't going to get distraught if you call them fat. Or if they do they're in the wrong business. I suspect Adam Jones wouldn't have won so many caps if he'd burst into tears every time words were said about his weight.

Obviously I wasn't saying making harsh comments to a random overweight woman is ok.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

whocares wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

606v2 always on top of diversity and inclusiveness

I know - we even let a French person in!

Presumably if the vote goes the "wrong way" in June we have to kick him out?

if the vote goes the wrong way as you suggest then I believe it opens the possibility of Scotland to go their "own way" and join EU. Might as well kick the English out then

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back.  Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black.  If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant.  But it was the context.  What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra?  None, unless attempting to rile or upset.  Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think).  But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language.  So was he wrong?  Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

I get the sneaky feeling you know the answer and are trying to do the whole 'not on a rugby forum' thing, but I'll play along: they are soccer players. Former English Premiership and current international players. Famous in some parts.

I genuinely havent heard of either of them, but when I got Cyril's reply I also went into the realms of 'sneaky feeling', but being the true gentleman that i am I respectfully thanked him and moved on.

If I wasnt so lazy i would have googled them up and probably, as you say, found out that they are soccer players.

Googling was going to be my next comment, had you said you didn't know who they were!!!

Asking who they are, and saying I dont know who they are, isnt exactly a million miles apart.

No, I mean if you're able to post the question on the internet then you're able to use the Internet to answer your question! You've since addressed that and admitted you were too lazy!

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back.  Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black.  If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant.  But it was the context.  What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra?  None, unless attempting to rile or upset.  Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think).  But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language.  So was he wrong?  Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

I get the sneaky feeling you know the answer and are trying to do the whole 'not on a rugby forum' thing, but I'll play along: they are soccer players. Former English Premiership and current international players. Famous in some parts.

I genuinely havent heard of either of them, but when I got Cyril's reply I also went into the realms of 'sneaky feeling', but being the true gentleman that i am I respectfully thanked him and moved on.

If I wasnt so lazy i would have googled them up and probably, as you say, found out that they are soccer players.

Googling was going to be my next comment, had you said you didn't know who they were!!!

Asking who they are, and saying I dont know who they are, isnt exactly a million miles apart.

No, I mean if you're able to post the question on the internet then you're able to use the Internet to answer your question! You've since addressed that and admitted you were too lazy!

Sadly Griff I can only be honest.

beshocked wrote: RDW Scotland You should really remove the thread because this gypsy boy talk is ridiculous really.

It's a storm in a teacup.

Player says something abusive, not racial (gypsies aren't a race) - two words not even that bad. Player in question apologises. Player in question shouldn't have said it, it was stupid but there are far more pressing matters than something as trivial as this.

Focus on the rugby instead of this ^&%$.

Gypsies ARE a race and are covered in the legislation. The point I've made before which escapes everyone's notice is that anything overheard on the mic that's offensive or construed racist regardless of intent can be raised by someone else i.e. offended on behalf of.

This is why RFU were intent on on burying this quickly. Now the WRU and outraged anti-marlers have got their wish and WR are scratching their heads it will be left upto RFU to explain politely that whilst against the law, this is international sport and more importantly and physical and abrasive one, where we pride ourselves about keeping the handbags on the pitch. That is where it should stay and the ref's mics need to be adjusted for gain to pick up just the ref and anyone within a meter.

Marler needed to be cited for the forearm push to the face but warned. The rest is generation snowflake outrage.

he apologised, it was accepted, he's been ticked off, those still outraged need to take a man-up pill ...else we'll all be banned for calling the French Frogs, the English Rosbeufs, the Scots Jocks etc etc.

Griff wrote:I agree to a certain extent that it's over the top, happens in every game, but IMO if he's caught on the microphone and broadcast to the world then it would have been good to send a message to kids that this sort of thing is not cool, that we can't and shouldn't goad, belittle, whatever you call it, based on heritage, race or culture.  Think about the kids, mun   I think it's minor, but then I think the same about other 'light remarks' we made about other cultures and heritage.  Doesn't mean I'm right though, or that I can play down any offence caused on the behalf of others.  Where these threads have been deleted is where, understandably, people have been offering up their own hypothetical scenarios for the precedent that this sets!

On another note, and worthy of discussion hopefully, is the point that Eddie Jones has accused Wales of attempting to detail their grand slam.  I personally do not believe this is the case, but each to his own.  However, I do hope that Jones extends that accusation to World Rugby now, after they have demanded an answer?  Doubt it somehow.

well said.

The madness on social media by many many outraged left me shaking my head in disgust

Ironically, the Suarez-Evra incident is a good example and wholly relevant to this discussion. Baiting opponents, whether through racial, family, personal insults, assuming biting is not involved, is institutionalised in soccer. It is usually accompanied by the usual hand wringing, negative PR, and some official sanction, but it does continue unabated. Therefore, part of that sport. This is exactly where we do not need Rugby to go. A perfect negative example, and one of the reasons why we need to take a position on the Marler comment. We cannot afford to become like soccer.

damage_13 essentially you are saying racial slurs are ok as long as you aren't caught on the ref mic or as long as they are kept on the pitch?

damage_13 wrote:

Griff wrote:I agree to a certain extent that it's over the top, happens in every game, but IMO if he's caught on the microphone and broadcast to the world then it would have been good to send a message to kids that this sort of thing is not cool, that we can't and shouldn't goad, belittle, whatever you call it, based on heritage, race or culture.  Think about the kids, mun   I think it's minor, but then I think the same about other 'light remarks' we made about other cultures and heritage.  Doesn't mean I'm right though, or that I can play down any offence caused on the behalf of others.  Where these threads have been deleted is where, understandably, people have been offering up their own hypothetical scenarios for the precedent that this sets!

On another note, and worthy of discussion hopefully, is the point that Eddie Jones has accused Wales of attempting to detail their grand slam.  I personally do not believe this is the case, but each to his own.  However, I do hope that Jones extends that accusation to World Rugby now, after they have demanded an answer?  Doubt it somehow.

well said.

The madness on social media by many many outraged left me shaking my head in disgust

Yeah. Doubt if many (or any) of the kids actually registered Marler saying anything without the media storm. It's not trying to excuse what is said but the 'impact' has been manufactured post event.

whocares wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

whocares wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

606v2 always on top of diversity and inclusiveness

I know - we even let a French person in!

Presumably if the vote goes the "wrong way" in June we have to kick him out?

if the vote goes the wrong way as you suggest then I believe it opens the possibility of Scotland to go their "own way" and join EU. Might as well kick the English out then

EU exit and Scottish independance - now that would really blow this thread wide open as a discussion!

But a bit of verbal niggle is a good thing, just so long as we can keep it away from microphones.

aucklandlaurie wrote: But a bit of verbal niggle is a good thing, just so long as we can keep it away from microphones.

The zeroth commandment - thou shalt not get caught.

GunsGerms wrote:damage_13 essentially you are saying racial slurs are ok as long as you aren't caught on the ref mic or as long as they are kept on the pitch?

No, but as outlined earlier on in the thread, its against the law, but so are lots of variations that are not either insulting or bad or even entirely dependent on context...but it doesn't matter as I said, it merely requires someone else to be offended on behalf of. This means that it's all or nothing, we either allow this to be delt with in the way it has ...or there is a huge clampdown, no mics on the pitch etc etc.

Do you understand what I am saying?

British Irish and French Lions then ?

lostinwales wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: But a bit of verbal niggle is a good thing, just so long as we can keep it away from microphones.

The zeroth commandment - thou shalt not get caught.

yes, but, if it's actually that insulting then it needs to be dealt with. Most people probably don't even know gypsies are classed as a race and hense covered under this law.

I think Marler should've been cited for such a crap insult AND for being overheard

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

TrailApe wrote:I prefer not to use the term 'ginger'.

CopperTop gets the job done without the whole 'ginger' thing.

And no I'm not personally, but a lot of my family are.

Yeah I don't use the word ginger either. Daywalker is much more useful.

Thank you south park

"Hand in hand, we live together... we shouldn't kill each other we're all the same..."

damage_13 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:damage_13 essentially you are saying racial slurs are ok as long as you aren't caught on the ref mic or as long as they are kept on the pitch?

No, but as outlined earlier on in the thread, its against the law, but so are lots of variations that are not either insulting or bad or even entirely dependent on context...but it doesn't matter as I said, it merely requires someone else to be offended on behalf of. This means that it's all or nothing, we either allow this to be delt with in the way it has ...or there is a huge clampdown, no mics on the pitch etc etc.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Not really. Do you understand what you are saying?

lostinwales wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: But a bit of verbal niggle is a good thing, just so long as we can keep it away from microphones.

The zeroth commandment - thou shalt not get caught.

Of course.

I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

wolfball wrote:I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US. Why on earth would anyone want freedom of speech to be extended to incitement of hatred and racism is beyond me.

Do you really want to live in a country where organisations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spread?

GunsGerms wrote:

wolfball wrote:I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US. Why on earth would anyone want freedom of speech to be extended to incitement of hatred and racism is beyond me.

Do you really want to live in a country where organisations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spread?

Not to mention the kardashiens.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

wolfball wrote:I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US. Why on earth would anyone want freedom of speech to be extended to incitement of hatred and racism is beyond me.

Do you really want to live in a country where organisations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spread?

Not to mention kardashiens.

Wait, you know who they are but you don't know Suarez and Evra??

RDW_Scotland wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

wolfball wrote:I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US. Why on earth would anyone want freedom of speech to be extended to incitement of hatred and racism is beyond me.

Do you really want to live in a country where organisations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spread?

Not to mention kardashiens.

Wait, you know who they are but you don't know Suarez and Evra??

Have Suarez and Evra got their own TV channel that runs about 25 hours a day as well?

GunsGerms wrote:

wolfball wrote:I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US. Why on earth would anyone want freedom of speech to be extended to incitement of hatred and racism is beyond me.

Do you really want to live in a country where organisations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spread?

Who do you believe is smart and wise enough to tell YOU what you cannot hear? Who gets to decide for you? Once freedom of speech is removed then the very protections for minorities are stripped away the second a populist anti-minority power gets into government. This is happening in some Eastern European countries right now. The KKk and the Westboro churches exist and are mocked and insulted. They are hardly spreading. The N word was never made illegal. Culture shifted and now it's unavceptable. I am about as left wing as you can be without being a full blown Marxist and I think freedom of speech laws are very dangerous and it is funny you think they are more modern than the outdated freedom of speech laws in the U.S. Laws banning speech are some of the oldest laws around.

I mean this has gone a bit past being rugby centric but I am in Indonesia for the last couple of months and they just banned gay people from being on TV. I have spoken to local liberals here and they would love to have freedom of speech in law...

Anyone think it would have been better if Marler burst into song and antagonized Lee with interpretative dance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLTETaWswCY

I was born in the wagon of a travelin' show
My mama used to dance for the money they'd throw
Papa would do whatever he could
Preach a little gospel..

GunsGerms wrote:

wolfball wrote:I am a free speech absolutist and in that context all speach should be protected, even insulting, racist disgusting speach. I realise that is not the law in the UK or most of Europe but it is one of the few legal things the US gets right. Having said that, the free speech should only protected in terms of the government. Ie you cannot be arrested for saying someone is 'insert racist epithet'. A private organization is a different matter and can create whatever rules regarding acceptable speech like. They can say sheep shagger is racist against certain people or really make their own very precise (or general) rules on acceptable speech. And that is what the IRB should do. I think that the term in question is racist. But that the existence of a UK law concerning that term does more harm than good. And that IRB is quite capable of drawing up a charter (as most sports do) on acceptable speech.

Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US. Why on earth would anyone want freedom of speech to be extended to incitement of hatred and racism is beyond me.

Do you really want to live in a country where organisations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spread?

I can only agree. Too many people take freedom of speech as an extreme value, overruling any other moral issue it comes up against. I'm pretty sure there's meant to be a considerable degree of responsibility involved. Yes, people should be allowed to express their thoughts. But as a manifestation of what is supposed to be democracy and tolerance, it certainly cannot be used to justify the promotion of intolerant agendas. It pains me when I see people defending the right of Nazi fundamentalists or similar extremists to attempt to gather the support to discard most of what we call human rights.

No one is condoning banning freedom of speech but rather advocating sensible limits such as banning incitement to hatred and racism.

Banning gay people on TV is the polar opposite to banning racism and having sensible freedom of speech laws in place. Obtuse example.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Its the same with any freedom. If it is abused it should be limited.

Freedom of speech laws without limits are like gun laws without homicide charges.

The point is your and I's sensible limits may very well differ from the next political party in powers sensible limits and once we give up the freedom of speech to be governed by legislation we have created a rod for our own back.

The NAACP protects the rights of the KKk as it knows those same rights were fundamental to allowing jim crow laws to be over-turned.

Anyways I've made my point, sensible people can of course disagree and I completly understand how having government protect people from disgusting words sounds appealing. I wish history showed that we can have that without the slippery slope. Most slippery slope arguments are bunk. The freedom of speech slippery slope is one many countries have been down with some terrible results.

The funny thing is that Guns, you and I agree on te statement being racist. On the punishment. On pretty much everything to do with the case. We just differ on the role of government versus the role of society versus the role of private organizations to enforce social mores. You give a large role to the government. I say that the other two are where the responsibility rests due to the incredible downside risks of giving government that power. Anyways getting late here so won't be able to reply for awhile!

gregortree wrote:British Irish and French Lions then ?

I suppose we could use Guirado, Picamoles and Fofana in the dirt trackers....

wolfball wrote:The point is your and I's sensible limits may very well differ from the next political party in powers sensible limits and once we give up the freedom of speech to be governed by legislation we have created a rod for our own back.

The NAACP protects the rights of the KKk as it knows those same rights were fundamental to allowing jim crow laws to be over-turned.

Anyways I've made my point, sensible people can of course disagree and I completly understand how having government protect people from disgusting words sounds appealing. I wish history showed that we can have that without the slippery slope. Most slippery slope arguments are bunk. The freedom of speech slippery slope is one many countries have been down with some terrible results.

The funny thing is that Guns, you and I agree on te statement being racist. On the punishment. On pretty much everything to do with the case. We just differ on the role of government versus the role of society versus the role of private organizations to enforce social mores. You give a large role to the government. I say that the other two are where the responsibility rests due to the incredible downside risks of giving government that power. Anyways getting late here so won't be able to reply for awhile!

If I lived in the UK I might possibly be tempted to be as suspicious and less trusting of the government as you. I'm not a Tory fan at all.

However, we have our own political problems in Ireland and I definitely do not see how allowing unlimited freedom of speech including sectarianism or any form of racial discrimination is in any way helpful certainly from an Irish political or historical perspective.

I am afraid I cant see any good whatsoever coming from it.

Wasn't one of ten commandments relating to banning free speech? Certainly blasphemy/heresy is an nice old example of it.

I think one of the problems with blocking free speech is that it drives things underground. There it cannot be countered with logic and reason. The true context cannot be applied and people are subverted. If it was out in the open it would be harder to do that. Clamping down can also lead to the view a group are being suppressed and therefore must have a valid opinion (great logic there).

So I would be more for legislation being removed and private bodies acting on it. So, employers could have policies on it, sporting bodies, etc, which is unrelated to the law as Wolfball said.

I would say, just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can't get done for conspiracy to commit a crime if you planning illegal acts....right?