World Rugby wants Marler explanation

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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Thank god we don't have the same outdated laws over here as they do in the US.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?

HammerofThunor wrote: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?

HammerofThunor wrote: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?

doctor_grey wrote:Maybe Marler shold etch in his head 'I am a douche' and we can move on.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Maybe Marler shold etch in his head 'I am a douche' and we can move on.

His hairdo does that by itself.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

TJ wrote:Letting him off sends the wrong signals IMO - but neither does he need to be hung drawn and quartered

TJ wrote:Under normally and widely accepted definitions this was a racist comment.  google for it if you don't understand.  However not a very serious offense in the grand scheme of things.  Its also clearly against the rules of the game.  The decision to clear Marler was more than odd I thought so I am not surprised world rugby wants an explanation.

I don't think a long suspension is needed if any.  Something like the equivalent of a suspended sentence would have been about right.

Letting him off sends the wrong signals IMO - but neither does he need to be hung drawn and quartered