Widnes Nick Gregson Ban

[The Phantom Horseman]

17 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Dont be ridiculous!

It's not ridiculous at all. You're either tolerant of discriminatory, predjudicial language and behaviour or you're not. Unless you think you personally should get to be the judge of what is acceptable?

[OMEGA]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

It's not ridiculous at all. You're either tolerant of discriminatory, predjudicial language and behaviour or you're not. Unless you think you personally should get to be the judge of what is acceptable?

it’s an ad absurdum argument that is absolutely out of kilter with the rest of this thread, that’s why it’s ridiculous!

[The Phantom Horseman]

9 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

 

I do feel though that the censoring of one side of the argument or cancelling people because they don’t agree with a current societal trend or view is not right. As long as those on either side of the debate don’t cross the line then both should be heard as both are valid.

But the line has been clearly set out, as evidenced by the excerpt from the Operations Manual I put up earlier. You just don't like the line.
 

[The Phantom Horseman]

11 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

it’s an ad absurdum argument that is absolutely out of kilter with the rest of this thread, that’s why it’s ridiculous!

You cited a word that is unmistakeably used as a homophobic insult -  there's no other context for it other than as a perjorative word used about homosexual people - and said it wasn't being used as a homophobic insult. Once something is unambiguously discriminatory/perjorative, we've crossed the line, but you seem to want to move that line.

[The Phantom Horseman]

Anyway we're getting a bit away from the topic. Still no clarification as far as I can see from the RFL about the time range for the comments behind this ban, so the speculation will continue.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Guilty of what? 

Historical tweets using unacceptable language. 

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, OMEGA said:

There’s no speculation in my comment, his position, opinion and view have been deemed to be wrong while the opposing view is deemed right!

In the posts I’ve seen he isn’t using extreme language and he isn’t threatening in any way, had he crossed a line on those fronts I’d agree with some form of warning or sanction but he didn’t.

The issue here is a societal one, why can he not hold and express his opinion when others holding the opposing opinion, also deemed offensive and damaging by some, can express theirs?

If he were to tweet pro trans stuff would he be equally as guilty?

Of course it's speculation because you don't know what evidence the tribunal looked at and as I've already said your own personal views are irrelevant. This isn't  a societal issue, the tribunal decided he breached a code of conduct. You can choose to make more of it you want but it is absolutely normal in most industries now that employees are held to account for what they say on social media. Again whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant to this case.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, OMEGA said:

Did he have much choice?

You always have a choice. Maybe he could have not tweeted in the first place using the language he did and which he has admitted to

[Sailaway]

I wonder what is his view on hanging?

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Those defending the ban haven’t seen them either tbf. This whole debate is pointless, though I’m in favour of free speech and without the benefit of seeing the tweets I think it’s harsh to ban someone for expressing an opinion, as long as it’s not inciting violence. 

Free speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences...

[RP London]

1 hour ago, OMEGA said:

So if he wants to be a Rugby League player he has to accept that his opinion is silenced?

I could argue that the RFLs own stance is in itself prejudicial and non inclusive

There is a difference between having an opinion and being prejudicial and therefore making it that people are not accepted. Again, so far there is a small sample of tweets been shown, when we see the lot then perhaps the idea "it was just an opinion" may change. Perhaps it won't, I'm trying not to judge until more information comes through but just putting across the way these things tend to work. 

You'd really struggle to argue that last point to be fair, its often thrown at this type of thing as "well your not including my opinion" and it just doesn't work like that.. If you want to go into why I suggest that's for a separate topic in the politics forum as it would derail this one quickly..

[RP London]

1 hour ago, OMEGA said:

I’m going to put my cards on the table at this point if only to prevent anyone getting the wrong opinion about why I’m putting an opposing argument out there! I have no issue with trans, gay etc none whatsoever! Two of my own children are gay, it makes no difference to me and I couldn’t be more proud of them

I do feel though that the censoring of one side of the argument or cancelling people because they don’t agree with a current societal trend or view is not right. As long as those on either side of the debate don’t cross the line then both should be heard as both are valid.

Indeed.. but on your last sentence.. did he? we havent seen anywhere near enough IMHO to make that call either way. The fact the RFL and an independent tribunal have and have come up with this verdict I would suggest is telling. 

[wroteforluck87]

Going off what being said about the nature and date for said tweets, I have no issue with the the punishment.

My concern was that he was being punished for tweets he made years ago.

I certainly wouldnt be happy if my employer took action against me for social media posts I made as teenager years before my employment with the company.

[dkw]

8 minutes ago, wroteforluck87 said:

Going off what being said about the nature and date for said tweets, I have no issue with the the punishment.

My concern was that he was being punished for tweets he made years ago.

I certainly wouldnt be happy if my employer took action against me for social media posts I made as teenager years before my employment with the company.

It looks like it was the Widnes twitter account that added in the 2012 thing, muddying the waters unnecessarily.

[Eddie]

45 minutes ago, dkw said:

Free speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences...

Agreed it doesn’t in this country but whether it should depends on your viewpoint.   Also this is why TRL is the only social media I use, there’s too much nonsense surrounding it all. 

Edited March 20 by Eddie

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Agreed it doesn’t in this country but whether it should depends on your viewpoint. 

Really, so you think theres an actual fair viewpoint that freedom of speech should mean freedom from consequences? Seriously?

[RP London]

29 minutes ago, wroteforluck87 said:

Going off what being said about the nature and date for said tweets, I have no issue with the the punishment.

My concern was that he was being punished for tweets he made years ago.

I certainly wouldnt be happy if my employer took action against me for social media posts I made as teenager years before my employment with the company.

Indeed, but they may not employee you in the first place becuase of them.. 

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, dkw said:

Really, so you think theres an actual fair viewpoint that freedom of speech should mean freedom from consequences? Seriously?

Within reason yes, like in the United States. 

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Within reason yes, like in the United States. 

Please tell me this is a wind up....

[Eddie]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

Please tell me this is a wind up....

Wow, someone has a different opinion to you so it’s a wind up

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Wow, someone has a different opinion to you so it’s a wind up

There’s not much free speech in the states. It’s quite notable.

But there is an odd segment of the UK population who believe that we live under the jackboot of a basically totalitarian government whereas the US has a freedom we can only dream about.

[Eddie]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There’s not much free speech in the states. It’s quite notable.

But there is an odd segment of the UK population who believe that we live under the jackboot of a basically totalitarian government whereas the US has a freedom we can only dream about.

They have a lot more freedom of speech than we do, that’s undeniable. 

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

They have a lot more freedom of speech than we do, that’s undeniable. 

I’m denying it.

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

They have a lot more freedom of speech than we do, that’s undeniable. 

They really don't. A certain section of the population is allowed to say whatever they like, even if it is proven to be factually incorrect. A large proportion of the population do not have this ability and even when they have the actual facts they are told to sit down and shut up. 

[Griff]

9 minutes ago, Eddie said:

They have a lot more freedom of speech than we do, that’s undeniable. 

Jeez, Eddie, where have you been these last few months?