Escaping the Echo Chamber

[Frelga]

Tolkien didn't found a religion with a few billion members.

May you be forgiven, yov.

[River]

It is also very much worth noting that the tweet in question is basically just a quote from the Bible. If quoting the Bible is considered "hate speech", then we have some serious problems.

Why would source material matter when you're basically telling groups of people you believe they're going to hell because they're off being who they are? Are there any other books you can quote from that magically make such sentiments and language totally socially acceptable and not at all hateful?

That said, there's something broader at play here and that is where private and public divide in this day and age of social media. An employee of an organization is, in my opinion, entitled to their personal beliefs and they are free to do as they will within bounds of the law in their free time. On the clock, they need to follow their organization's rules if they want to stay employed and that includes social media policies. However, people do get fired because their personal activities on their personal time went viral and they embarrassed their employer or they showed themselves to be someone their teammates might now be nervous about working with (i.e., they turned out to be a neo-Nazi). So...under what circumstances is that not okay?

[yovargas]

So...under what circumstances is that not okay?

Under the circumstances where it leads to persecution of religious beliefs, one of the cornerstone foundations of our society and legal system.

[River]

So if someone dropped a raunchy bit from the Song of Songs on my desk at work I shouldn't report it because Bible? My boss is a religious guy but I'm pretty sure he'd chew me out for NOT reporting an event like that.

There are benign ways to publicly express your religious beliefs. There are also not-so benign ways. Quoting a Bible verse isn't necessarily one of the benign ones.

[Túrin Turambar]

This one is likely to go the Federal Court. The legal question, basically, is how much control an employer is entitled to exercise over an employee’s social media use or time when they’re not working generally. I think it’s pretty obvious there is a line somewhere, for example, female employees would have a legitimate concern in reporting to a manager with a history of posting misogynistic content on social media, and so the manager’s private social media usage could become a matter of workplace conduct. Rugby Australia argues that Folau is an ambassador for the sport by reason of being on the national team, and part of the reason he’s being paid millions is to represent Australian rugby union and its values, including inclusivity. I'd prefer if it he were allowed to express his views, and I don't think "all these people are going to hell" is necessarily hate speech (and the list included me, as an atheist). But Rugby Australia already warned him for the same conduct earlier, so they're on pretty strong ground. Folau was always entitled to practice his faith, not post anything on social media.

I would have really preferred if he hadn't have done this, because he's one of the best players in the world and Australia's world cup hopes have taken a huge hit. But I doubt this will cause Alatar any concern

Plus saying drunkards are going to hell is a self-evident attack on Australian values

[Alatar]

Good point Túrin! Who's standing up for the drunken fornicators?

[Dave_LF]

Hopefully no one. It's tricky enough to pull it off standing up even when you're not drunk.

[yovargas]

"I am a Christian. I believe that people who unrepentantly engage in sin will be sent to hell by God. X, Y, and Z are sinful actions in my belief."


Are we really okay with calling this statement "hate speech"?

[elengil]

"I am a Christian. I believe that people who unrepentantly engage in sin will be sent to hell by God. X, Y, and Z are sinful actions in my belief."


Are we really okay with calling this statement "hate speech"?

I also see a (perhaps softer) difference between "I believe that these people will go to hell" and "These people are going to hell." One being, again, a statement of personal belief, the other very much still feeling like a judgement.

But where law falls either way, I have no idea.

[Dave_LF]

Intent matters. If the speaker intended to threaten and intimidate, then the speech should be treated accordingly, regardless of the source of the specific words used.

[Alatar]

I'm in two minds about this. I believe you're entitled to believe that gays go to hell, but if you're an ambassador for your sport, then your boss has the right to fire you for not upholding their values in public discourse. In rugby its normally called "bringing the sport into disrepute", and given he had a formal warning for the behaviour previously then he has no right to complain.

[elengil]

I'm in two minds about this. I believe you're entitled to believe that gays go to hell, but if you're an ambassador for your sport, then your boss has the right to fire you for not upholding their values in public discourse. In rugby its normally called "bringing the sport into disrepute", and given he had a formal warning for the behaviour previously then he has no right to complain.

There is a lot of discussion in the US about (American) Football players who use their position and visibility for social, political, or religious statements. It's up to their employer if they want to be associated with the statements made. Some have been supported, some seem to have been quietly essentially sidelined. Their freedom of speech was not infringed, their freedom of religion was not infringed, but their employer may not like the publicity and decide to no longer employ them.

[Frelga]

"I am a Christian. I believe that people who unrepentantly engage in sin will be sent to hell by God. X, Y, and Z are sinful actions in my belief."


Are we really okay with calling this statement "hate speech"?

Context matters. Is it hate speech?

In your church? No.
In Times Square or your local equivalent? No.
In the workplace? Possibly.
As a member of Congress? Yes.

[elengil]

Context matters. Is it hate speech?

In your church? No.
In Times Square or your local equivalent? No.
In the workplace? Possibly.
As a member of Congress? Yes.

[Cerin]

I also see a (perhaps softer) difference between "I believe that these people will go to hell" and "These people are going to hell." One being, again, a statement of personal belief, the other very much still feeling like a judgement.

So what if it's a judgment? It's just an opinion, so who the heck cares what this one person thinks about various practitioners' eternal fates? News Flash: His opinion can't actually send anyone to hell.

Intent matters. If the speaker intended to threaten and intimidate, then the speech should be treated accordingly, regardless of the source of the specific words used.

How can someone expressing the belief that practitioners of x, y and z behaviors are going to hell possibly be seen as threatening or intimidating? News Flash: His opinion can't actually send anyone to hell. Where is the threat? What is the intimidation?

Context matters. Is it hate speech?In your church? No.In Times Square or your local equivalent? No.In the workplace? Possibly.As a member of Congress? Yes.

Why is it not 'hate' if said in church or in Times Square, but might be 'hate' in the workplace and is definitely 'hate' in Congress? Is this 'hate' a legal concept?

[elengil]

Because elected officials should not be stating anything that is or is implied as government endorsement of any religious beliefs. Yes, they do all the time, but they shouldn't. Especially when those beliefs are predicated on only assigning worth to certain individuals (i.e. those who believe/act "correctly" per said religious beliefs.)

[Cerin]

Because elected officials should not be stating anything that is or is implied as government endorsement of any religious beliefs. Yes, they do all the time, but they shouldn't. Especially when those beliefs are predicated on only assigning worth to certain individuals (i.e. those who believe/act "correctly" per said religious beliefs.)

I understand about not implying government endorsement of religious beliefs, but what makes it 'hate?" How can something not be 'hate' in one context but is 'hate' in another?

I think this term 'hate' is bandied about carelessly and without understanding much of the time.

[elengil]

hate speech
noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
"we don't tolerate any form of hate speech"

[Frelga]

Why is it not 'hate' if said in church or in Times Square, but might be 'hate' in the workplace and is definitely 'hate' in Congress? Is this 'hate' a legal concept

For much the same reason why a punch is an 'assault' if thrown on a subway but not in a boxing ring.

[Dave_LF]

Intent matters. If the speaker intended to threaten and intimidate, then the speech should be treated accordingly, regardless of the source of the specific words used.

How can someone expressing the belief that practitioners of x, y and z behaviors are going to hell possibly be seen as threatening or intimidating? News Flash: His opinion can't actually send anyone to hell. Where is the threat? What is the intimidation?

"You're going to burn in hell for that!," spoken in an angry tone of voice while leaning over the target (for example), is absolutely intimidation, especially if it's directed at someone who actually believes in God and hell. "I believe that doing x will get a person sent to hell" is an expression of belief and not (legally) a threat. Though of course a clever threatener will use this sort of language precisely to avoid that accusation. But without a mind reader, there's only so much the law can do.