With the recent tweets and subsequent turmoil surrounding ex-Australian Rugby player Israel Folau, many have jumped on both sides of the story, respectively saying that his statements were either hate speech or him exercising his freedom of speech/freedom of worship. Unfortunately, due to the vague definitions for both freedom of speech/worship and hate speech entails, there has not been much consensus in the community and not much constructive discussion either.
According to the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, freedom of speech is recognized as ‘the right… to hold opinions without interference cannot be subject to exceptions or limitations’ and ‘the right…protects freedom of expression in any medium’. Meanwhile, the attorney-general also recognizes the freedom to worship as ‘the right to think freely and to entertain ideas and hold positions based on conscientious or religious or other beliefs’. However, freedom of speech does entail that the right is limited on declarations of vilification on groups such as religious groups, racial groups or ethnic groups. At the same time, the right to worship contains no such attachment.
So, from this look from the leading legal body of Australia it is clear that one can hold and entertain the position which Israel Folau did, as is their right under the right to worship, but they are not protected from consequences as the restrictions applied to the freedom of speech right state. As such, for the outstanding case, Folau could hold the positions he had but was not safe from the consequences that could occur, especially considering he was facing a private organization. So, why exactly is there so much confusion around these rights and if he should or shouldn’t be prosecuted?
That comes down to societies understanding of the rights and furthermore, the media’s understanding of these rights. Many media sites generally do not include the full text of the right, nor a link to the source of the right due to writing constraints and audience factors. For many of these sites, it is more logical to provide a brief description and than move into the beefy news. As such, the majority of Australian’s who read these sites or watch the news do not get the full understanding of the right and may continue to detail the right in the abbreviated terms in which they had heard it. This can cause many people to believe that Israel Folau was entirely allowed to say what he did and should not have been persecuted or on the other hand, believe that there was no way he could be allowed to say or even think what he did.
The reality of the situation is that the two rights are fairly well detailed by the attorney-general, though this extensive and proper detail isn’t generally translated into media sites and as such, into the wider public. In an objective lens, Israel Folau was and is allowed to hold and otherwise entertain the positions he did, but was not safe from prosecution from his employers due to the limitations in the right to freedom of speech. Whether or not these laws are right is another discussion to be had, but hopefully this gives some idea to why things happened the way they did.
PoliticsBuff 