Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 1
st, 2016 at 10:01am:
Raven wrote on Nov 30
th, 2016 at 1:28pm:
Here's the thing about free speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can not be prevented from saying it. And it also means others have a right of reply
Who remembers Barry Spurr? He was the poetry academic at the University of Sydney who resigned after private emails on his university account were exposed as containing derogatory language about Muslims, Aboriginal people and Chinese people.
His emails breeched the University's Policy on the Use of Information and Communications Technology Resources. Spurr would have agreed to be bound by the terms of this policy as a condition of his employment.
Once these emails were brought to public attention, he was suspended from the university, until he eventually resigned.
He is free to repeat these terms in private email or private conversations. By losing his job at the University of Sydney, he has not been silenced or censored. The university has simply said they don't want to be associated with his conduct.
Barry Spurr was witchhunted by leftards. If the university regulations were consistency applied, then leftards would be stood down everywhere. There was a similar case recently with Roz Ward. She stated something controversial on race, was suspended, then reinstated when leftards had a cry about it. Double standards abound. The left are only too happy to protect their own on these issues and send their opposition down the sh*tter for the same issues. The lesson here is not to be merciful or half-arsed when dealing with the left. F**k their freedom of speech.
There was also Scott McIntyre who broadcast opinions on his Twitter account that denigrated Anzacs and Australia on Anzac Day.
Unsurprisingly, there was a public backlash against his tweets. SBS's Social Media Protocols are very similar to those of the University of Sydney.
After being contacted by SBS management, he was reportedly offered a way to acknowledge his conduct may have offended some people and options for disciplinary action. McIntyre refused to do so, so SBS management sacked him.
So what's the difference between Spurr and McIntyre? The subject matter is different. Spurr's emails were private. McIntyre's tweets were public. Both were against their respective employer's policies.
But some people seem to think McIntyre's free speech has been compromised. That's rubbish.
Like Spurr, McIntyre was free to express his repugnant views before he worked for SBS and now that he no longer works at SBS. He was also free to do so when he was working at SBS; he just had to accept that it may be in breach of his contract.
Throughout most of Australia, it's not illegal to say things publicly that are sexist or homophobic, or that mock disabled people. According to this logic, if an employee goes on sexist or homophobic rants, or attacks disabled people, it'd be censorship to condemn their behaviour and fire them.
It's possible that workplace codes can become too onerous, particularly when they are set by government employers. But neither the University of Sydney's, nor SBS's, go too far. They don't stop people talking about political matters or important, even sensitive, public matters.
As Spurr and McIntyre have discovered, these protocols just require that if people want to keep their employment, then they need to be mindful of their conduct and the impact it can have on others.