The Folau versus Rugby AU showdown has become a fixation for every corner of our society. There are as many opinions as there are keyboards, however, at the core of the issue there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ has been inevitably thrust into the standoff. Why should an individual have to forego their religious freedoms? It isn’t fair, we all have the right to free speech right?
Well, not quite. Australians do not have a constitutional right to freedom of speech. Section 116 of the Constitution states that the Government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion or imposing any religious requirement as a test for holding public office. So that’s not going to help here either.
So, what do we have then? According to the High Court, we have an implied freedom of political communication, essential in the proper operation of a system of democratic representative government.
It is not a private right for each citizen, but rather a limit on state and federal legislation should they attempt to infringe too heavily on this implied freedom.
So, do you have the right to ‘free speech’? Not really, and definitely not in the sense most people would think they do.
Where does this leave Izzy?
Israel is an employee of a company, just like anyone else. He just gets paid a little bit more. There has been so much discussion of ‘free speech’ in the workplace in light of recent events.
However, employees don’t have free speech. Not just RA employees; all employees. Speech in the workplace is effectively set out by the contractual obligations of the employee, whether these are explicitly stated or implied.
While, admittedly, it is a morally complex issue for many, it seems as if it the courts have not found it complex in recent times. We can look to the Full Federal Court in Chief of the Defence Force v Gaynor (2017) as a very relevant point of reference.
In this case, an officer of the Army Reserve published personal opinions on various social media platforms criticising homosexuality in the ADF. The Full Federal Court dismissed his case and re-stated that there is no expressly created right for individuals in relation to freedom of speech, particularly when it comes to an employment relationship. The High Court too rejected the case.
During my brief interlude into professional rugby, I was asked to remove photos from my social media of shooting rifles on a farm, smoking cigars at a wedding and drinking a beer with my friends, all taken well before I had been contracted. These images, which many would consider quite normal, were also not in line with the beliefs of my employer.
While it is very enticing to launch into discussions of rights, religious freedoms and discrimination, please remember how employment agreements work. Israel is being paid to represent a company and their values. If his actions are contrary to those of this employer, then they are well within their rights to part ways with him.
There doesn’t need to be an explicit social media clause, as conduct is implied so heavily throughout the RUPA standard playing contract. Having said this, Raelene Castle also issued a formal letter outlining Israel’s social media responsibilities.
Make no mistake, once Israel is no longer under contract, he will be free to say and do what he wishes, unless it’s considered discriminatory. Another issue for another day.
Free speech is certainly an interesting concept and well worth widespread discussion, but it is not as relevant in this instance as many would like.
Think before you tweet.
jack
Roar Rookie
Yep, you are right, I have very little idea how sponsorships work. agree with your comments
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Again Jack, I don't think you understand sponsorships very well. Its not really paid in advance, it's paid for and specific naming rights and exposure are agreed to beforehand. This would not be contingent on any one specific player term that could not be written in stone beforehand. Think about it, if you were paying $10m for something, you would want to know exactly what, where, when, how, you were getting a return. Now, without IF, RA have potentially a less attractive offer when it comes to negotiations for the next sponsorship deal, but the current one is done and dusted, there is no claw back clause.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Jack, I don't think you understand how sponsorship works. Sponsors provide money for marketing exposure, understandably they would like that exposure to be positive. Regardless of their own inclusive polices, I would bet they would not be pleased with this sort of post coming from one of the poster boy players. Its not a great return on investment.
rebel
Roar Guru
A lot easier to drown them out Jez. Look I'm not saying it should be open slather, but as Andy says, some differing views is interesting.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Is RA a constitutional corporation ?
soapit
Roar Guru
woud be interesting to see how those would go in court. doubt their policieswould have been asspecific on the item in question as RA's was with folaus (and theres still seems to be some grey even with that one).
soapit
Roar Guru
not sure all thatd leave enough time to practice and play rugby
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Considering that people have been sacked for quite a while now for social media posts I'd be a bit concerned if people are thinking about this because of Folau. IF people are only becoming concerned now then they've been asleep for a good few years.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Yes, I know that's the case with Folau but I'm talking about the how the Folau incident is getting people to think about the rights of employers and employees. People are thinking about their own contracts and social media accounts and whether they're protected. As I said, it's no bad thing if people start to debate this a bit more deeply and that a greater range of people contribute than the usual suspects.
Seymorebutts
Roar Rookie
He paraphrased something from Galations....... it already mentioned liars, drunks and fornicators,Izzy threw in the homosexuals for good measure. ;-) I counted out the abominations and I'm and enthusiastic participant in at least three of them... If Izzy doesnt think Im going to heaven Im ok with it.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
How many rugby players are guilty of drink driving but keep their job I give up how many ? Who is O’Dowd ? - the first page of google results are the Irish comedian Chris O’Dowd and the Australian MP Ken O'Dowd. I can't see either of them being found guilty of assault. And why do they do talent shows ?
Guy IVkes
Guest
How many rugby players are guilty of drink driving but keep their job? Qantas obviously think this is more serious than drink driving. The question here is should a sponsor be able to tell you who you can or cannot hire and if so where do we draw the line? P.s. how come O'Dowd is allowed into the country, a man who was found guilty of physical assault of a another man or maybe a certain original star trek actor who has several times defended homosexual paedophiles. The same people who want to roast Folau don't seem seem to mind these people coming to Australia. Will Qantas be threatening to withdraw advertising from any network that allows O'Dowd on their so called talent shows? Pigs are primed and ready for take off.
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
SMI, posting my reply down here now. This is one case out of how many? It is no different to the poster on another thread (or article, I forgot where I read it) that was asked to remove photos of him drinking and smoking cigars from his social media while employed by a school. Neither are illegal and nor did it infringe upon his freedom of speech. It was a simple case of "if you want to take our money then ensure that your views (at least publicly are aligned with ours). I personally know of a woman that was told that she had to remove modelling photos of her in a bikini from Facebook as it wasn't a professional look for the company. Again not impeding her freedom of speech. Merely ensuring that the public appearance is in line with that of the company.
dazell
Roar Rookie
Deleted didn’t make sense
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It’s not my imagination that she was tweeting anonymously. That’s the facts of the case. Based on that, her tweets are not linked to her employer. Folau posted his on a public account, in his own name, verified as Israel Folau the professional rugby player (public figures can verify their accounts to get a blue tick to show followers they are the official account). It’s an entirely different situation. One was a random account, found to be operated by an employee. One was an official account, known by the readers to be operated by an employee. Then there’s the subject matter. Criticising government policy is political communication. It is protected by law and ruled by the High Court.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey Fionn, See what I mean - Jacko is usually so far gone it's very hard to take him seriously. Must be the stopped clock effect.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey SandBox, I think the employer gets as much as we want to sell. As long as they are upfront about it. is that he just quoted the bible. Well as said above nope he paraphrased. And even if he directly quoted why should that give him an out ? If a footballer was having a beef with a female journalist/fan /official and he used Ezekiel 23:20 to describe her is there any doubt he'd be in danger of being sacked ? Would it matter that he quoted a bible verse ? I doubt it.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
See mine and Fionn/TWAS posts below regarding a public service employee who won her case as her sacking infringed on her freedom of speech!
Jacko
Guest
Oh dear...talking to yourself again.... Fionn?RO?
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
I would class myself as right wing. More Abbott than Turnbull definitely. But I’m not sure what my political stance has to do with anything. I’m not offended at all. I’m not hurt. Maybe a little dismayed that one of the games biggest names has committed career suicide but that’s about it. My issue here is he has repeatedly shown total disregard for his employer. He was formally warned about this less than a year ago and he completely blew them off. I want rugby to be strong and competitive in Australia. If your biggest player is going to continually undermine the values and wishes of not only RA but also its cornerstone sponsor then rugby in Australia can ill afford that. These are business and commercial decisions. IF used his public figure endorsed account to flaunt these opposing views. An account that is propped up by his employer and littered with photos of him in his uniform and sporting the sponsors logo therefore associating them with his views. IF is free to say whatever he likes (within the realms of the law) however he is not entitled to be supported in doing so by his employer. When you accept a pay check from someone you accept that there are business and commercial limitations and responsibilities linked to that. You’re not getting paid just because someone thinks you’re a top guy. The fact that the NRL, French league etc etc have all come out and said he wouldn’t be welcome there either shows that the issue is the commercial and insubordination side rather than trying to muzzle “free speech”