Freedom of Speech

[BuNdYrUmDoG]

The NRL is a private business entity, therefore the employees ( Players, Coaches, Staff ) can be fined without prosecution. Hence court cases only happen when someone is sacked.

It's a shit business model but it's how it is currently.

 

[albatross]

If there's freedom to slag off at refs, should a ref who's getting hammered have the same freedom of speech to fire back? Would make things interesting.

 

[Vlasnik]

If there's freedom to slag off at refs, should a ref who's getting hammered have the same freedom of speech to fire back? Would make things interesting.

would make it very interesting but there is no such freedom. You can't say boo to a ref without being penalized especially if you're Klemmer wearing our blue and white jersey!!!

 

[doggieaaron]

The club should get lawyers involved and not roll over this time

 

[Oatley Dog]

Even though this is totally offtopic Deathspell is 100% correct. In crime the system is in my view anti-defendant all the way through.

Well of course a defence lawyer would cry that the system is geared against the defendant. What fool would think he would come on here saying oh thank goodness for the prosecution being so gentle with us it really helps us get our client off and add millions to our bank accounts.... Try being on the other side of the fence and watching one guilty POS after another walk out the door after sometimes thousands of hours of meticulous investigation and analysis all because of the disgraceful behaviour of the defence brief in destroying a witness who has neither the intellect nor strength of personality to withstand the constant badgering. It is utter rubbish to suggest that the bench have a starting position of guilt for defendants simply because the bulk of heard matters result in the defendant walking free so that would indicate they are either insane or they can be easily swayed.

 

[Trafford10]

The thing is, making the refs completely protected from criticism and unanswerable to all but a private review only makes the situation worse.

Teams should be allowed to respectfully ask about specific rulings post game

They should be made to front the media.
Like the umpires in AFL.

 

[immortalbulldog]

I have never heard as much dribble and whinging from a fan base following a result. Countless change.org petitions on Facebook, threats to storm the NRL head office to protest and now we’ve even got people claiming that our freedom of speech is under attack. It’s time time for people to grow up.

Let’s get one thing straight. Thursdy was a disgraceful refereeing effort in many aspects and Sutton obviously has issues with us as a club. It’s infuriating to watch.

But seriously as a fan base let’s harden the fuck up. Stop the bitching and moaning and get on with it. It’s embarrassing the way some people carry on. We have a huge chunk of society who always feel the need to play the victim and now it’s creeping into our fan base. When we lost our points in 2002 it was incredible the amount of defiance show by our fan base. We staunchly got behind the boys every game. One of my fondest memories was the sign the army had that said “You can take our points but never our pride”.

Now I’m not so sure we’d react that way. We’d bitch and moan on social media and complain to no end, threaten to stop supporting the game and claim we are being victimised.
We all want the dogs of war culture to return to the club, maybe that extends to us too.
Agree with what I say, don’t agree, I really couldn’t care less.

 

[CroydonDog]

I'm not a lawyer ILLEGAL

Probably would have been easier to lead with that.

I'm reminded of the time a Bankrupt tried to quote the Geneva conventions to me when I told him I was taking his passport.

 

[CroydonDog]

The NRL will never have freedom of speech as long as a leftist is in charge.

Yep, this is the Kennel, where everything is the fault of this mysterious "left".

Are you seriously now saying Todd GREENBERG is some sort of socialist?

 

[CroydonDog]

But seriously as a fan base let’s harden the fuck up. Stop the bitching and moaning and get on with it. It’s embarrassing the way some people carry on.

We all want the dogs of war culture to return to the club, maybe that extends to us too.
.

Quotes of the day.

 

[CroydonDog]

Well there's several people on TK in the legal profession, so I'm guessing we'll get a ruling soon enough..

I seriously doubt that.

We currently have a regular poster who pretends he is though.

 

[Trafford10]

I have never heard as much dribble and whinging from a fan base following a result. Countless change.org petitions on Facebook, threats to storm the NRL head office to protest and now we’ve even got people claiming that our freedom of speech is under attack. It’s time time for people to grow up.

Let’s get one thing straight. Thursdy was a disgraceful refereeing effort in many aspects and Sutton obviously has issues with us as a club. It’s infuriating to watch.

But seriously as a fan base let’s harden the fuck up. Stop the bitching and moaning and get on with it. It’s embarrassing the way some people carry on. We have a huge chunk of society who always feel the need to play the victim and now it’s creeping into our fan base. When we lost our points in 2002 it was incredible the amount of defiance show by our fan base. We staunchly got behind the boys every game. One of my fondest memories was the sign the army had that said “You can take our points but never our pride”.

Now I’m not so sure we’d react that way. We’d bitch and moan on social media and complain to no end, threaten to stop supporting the game and claim we are being victimised.
We all want the dogs of war culture to return to the club, maybe that extends to us too.
Agree with what I say, don’t agree, I really couldn’t care less.

Nah mate.
There is something up with Gerrod Sutton.
He is corrupt and he & the NRL need to be called to account.
We have lost the last 7 games under him.
Over those games we haven't won the penalty count once. 29 penalties for the dogs 50 penalties against.
No wonder we all smell a rat!!!!

 

[steeliz]

ICCPR Article 19 states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
   ( a ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
   ( b ) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public ), or of public health or morals.

Limitations permitted under Article 19.3 are discussed in detail in the resources linked below and in summary on our permissible limitations page

General Comments | Optional Protocol complaints | Special Rapporteur

[paste:font size="4"]General Comment 10: Freedom of Opinion : now replaced by General Comment 34, issued in 2011.

• Full text of General Comment 34 on Human Rights Committee site; also available from bayefsky.com

[paste:font size="3"]General comment 34
General Comment 34 emphasises that freedom of expression and opinion are the foundation stone for a free and democratic society and a necessary condition for the promotion and protection of human rights. This General Comment addresses in detail:

• freedom of opinion
• freedom of expression
• freedom of expression and the media
• the right to access to information
• the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society
• the application of Article 19.3 on permissible limitations on freedom of information and expression
• the scope for limitations on freedom of expression in certain areas
• the relationship between articles 19 and 20.

Freedom of information and expression and democracy
General Comment No. 25 deals with freedom of expression in the context of participation in public affairs and the right to vote. The Human Rights Committee has stated that:

Citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and association. …
In order to ensure the full enjoyment of rights protected by article 25, the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. It requires the full enjoyment and respect for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant, including freedom to engage in political activity individually or through political parties and other organizations, freedom to debate public affairs, to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings, to criticize and oppose, to publish political material, to campaign for election and to advertise political ideas.

[paste:font size="4"]Attorney-General's page on human rights communications.

Mr Coleman was convicted under Queensland law for giving a public address in a pedestrian mall without a permit.

The Committee rejected Australia's arguments that the complaint was inadmissible and unsubstantiated.

The Committee found:

• the author’s arrest, conviction and sentence undoubtedly amounted to a restriction on his freedom of expression
• the restriction was prescribed by law
• while freedom of speech could be subject to restrictions in the interests of public order, these restrictions could not be such as to be incompatible with Article 19
• there was no evidence that Mr Coleman's conduct had been unduly disruptive
• the restriction applied to Mr Coleman was disproportionate
• there was thus a violation of Article 19.

In its response Australia rejected the Committee's finding of a violation and argued that the permit system in operation was necessary to protect the rights of other users of the mall.

I'm not a lawyer, but this should make the NRL's fine ILLEGAL

You sign away those rights when you sign an NRL contract.

 

[seven07]

You sign away those rights when you sign an NRL contract.

Then the contract is not binable due to it contradicting the Australian constitution

 

[steeliz]

Then the contract is not binable due to it contradicting the Australian constitution

Until it is challenged in a court of law, it is.

 

[seven07]

Until it is challenged in a court of law, it is.

Well maybe that's what the club should do.

 

[CroydonDog]

Then the contract is not binable due to it contradicting the Australian constitution

Is it about the vibe? Or Mabo?

 

[The DoggFather]

I object!

 

[The DoggFather]

PS what happens if you swear in court?

What would happen if I don't call the pedophile pricks "your honour"?

 

[Straight18]

Its quite funny that the same rule doesnt ablige for this site, u say something a few sooks dont like and your thrown off. What the fuck its the same thing. No freedom of speech.