Israel Folau: Should companies bow to the indignation of social media?

OPINION: There must be a clear distinction between the misdeeds of Israel Folau, who is currently facing calls to be repressed by Rugby Australia for its controversial online posts, and those of sportsmen charged with crimes. Dealing with the official repercussions of breaking the law is a very different thing from facing him to express his outdated ideas on the Internet.

If we officially start excommunicating celebrities because of personal opinions, our society badumes that what you do professionally can not be dissociated from what you believe. It follows that the art is inseparable from the artist and that to admire someone for his professional achievements is to subscribe to his opinions.

This is a disturbing precedent, it means that I could not enjoy the movie anymore Liar Liar because Jim Carrey is an unleashed anti-vaxxer – and does not even get me started on the ugly stances held by some of the most influential thinkers in our history.

The outrage machine on the internet is a very volatile entity that must now be taken into account in everything that a celebrity says and does. It is common to push crowds online calling for professional retaliation, with businesses caught in the crossfire and facing a loser-loser situation. If they agree to the crowd, a whole new person will form, outraged by the initial reaction of the reflex reflex, and twice as angry as the last.

READ MORE:
* Israel Folau called by All Black Nehe Milner-Skudder and Japanese Captain Michael Leitch
* Israel Folau will not be allowed to return to the "inclusive" LNR, says ARLC boss
* The ban on Israel for expressing an opinion would be "totalitarian"

The only miracle solution to this problem is for these professional entities to remain apolitical and neutral with respect to the non-illegal online activities of those they employ or sponsor. Otherwise, we risk opening a box of employers (or any crowd) that can dictate what is acceptable for an employee to say online.

With such a diversity of views and many ways to spread them – there will never be a shortage of disagreement or offense. Our subjective and evolving social norms are the result of the freedom we have to debate and debate ideas in the public space. To foster growth and progress, we must be able to manage the difference without the main threat of professional repudiation.

This issue shows that we are at the crossroads of society. Do we want to cultivate a strong culture of debate, according to which views are subject to the disinfecting light of public scrutiny? Or do we want to send these views into hiding, announcing loudly that if you express an unpopular opinion, you risk being punished by the procedure?

The United States and the United Kingdom currently have very different approaches to what we can and can not say in the public sphere. The US model clearly indicates incitement to hatred, while the UK has criminalized various acts of "hate speech", which has resulted in a large number of arrests for comments made on the Internet, a teenager being convicted of a hate crime post rap lyrics, and dogs are accused of racially motivated hate crimes.

Freedom of expression does not mean the absence of consequences – however, these consequences should not be applied by corporations or our government. Should Folau's ideas be ridiculed? Certainly. Internet rightly gave him the two barrels, thus showing to those who admire him that his online opinions should be approached with caution, and showing to the recipients of his vitriol that they were backed by a overwhelming majority.

However, if we are in favor of dismissing him on the basis of particularly incompetent online expressions, we show that no matter what your talent or your work time, everything can be removed for the pure pleasure of your life. a meme.

As a result, one could easily think that, because they have certain ideas, why even try? With the imminent risk that some points of view may lead to dismissal, how many people currently hold marginal ideas in secret or sink into groups closed by the fear of losing their livelihood?

On top of that, many people may not have the social perception needed to understand what is acceptable to say online. If we were to adopt a compbadionate approach, we would not exclude them, we would try to help them, or at least, through open discussion and honest debate, we could convince our arguments.

I fear that by systematically stifling these discussions we can not stop the very social progress of which we are so proud.