Independent thought by women must be punished

The stadium wasnt named after her for her views, they are irrelevant. The only valid reason to remove her name would be if she'd been found to have cheated in some way. Everything else is sanctimonious claptrap.
Tennis is about human physical and mental skills not opinions.

The price of free speech as a society is that we have to extend it to all, whether we like what they say or not. "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
Yy if we put caveats around it then we erode freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I was also bemused when Andy Murray said it wasn't what tennis stood for. What does it stand for except hitting a ball with a bat? Or does it stand for hurting a lineswoman and having tennis fans troll her about her dead son? Does it stand for Serena being shamed for her court attire even when medically necessary?
Andy has been very good at acknowledging women in tennis but the reason he has to keep speaking publicly about it is because 'tennis' doesn't stand for anything except the game itself and making money.

But she isn't free to express her nasty views if it means consequences such as being stripped of titles and accolades that were nothing to do with her views but to do with her sporting talents.

I pointed out she holds some vile beliefs. Which she does, and exercised my freedom of speech to say I wouldn't stand with her. She is no Martina.

Yes, freedom of speech has to be for everyone, even those with whom we disagree. It's utterly worthless otherwise.

This is not 'brave woman speaks out calmly and civilly for female athletes'.

I'm not stopping her speaking; I'm not signing a petition to rename the tennis court - but I'm also not going to stand behind MC and cheer her on.

And I'm constantly surprised at the people who express this view and don't see how short-sighted it is.

They, at some point, will be cancelled, once the definition of what's bigoted, or acceptable, changes. And it will change.

Therefore free speech must be free. You can hate someone's opinions, but they must be allowed to express them.

The point is that we don't get to decide who should speak on the basis of who we agree with - or we shouldn't.

Wholeheartedly agree, @queenofknives

I agree with you BlackWave that they are wrong about JK and you are probably right about MC (I know nothing about her except tennis). But that's still just our opinion. And people who think JK is a bigot - that's just their opinion. The point is that we don't get to decide who should speak on the basis of who we agree with - or we shouldn't. We either say JK should be allowed her voice, in which case we have to tolerate MC. Or we say MC should not be allowed her voice, in which case we can't have JK's voice either.

MC is. 'And independent thought?' She spouts fringe church nonsense. Nothing independent about it.

Sorry @Pingu21 I understand the confusion now. The examples you gave of harassment and incitement have no free speech defence. They are crimes precisely because they are more than simply the exercise of free speech.

Another example would be conspiracy. Its a crime. But you and I could sit and work out the best way to rob a bank just for fun, and we wouldn't expect any consequences. You could make a film about robbing a bank, and again, face no consequences. Because that's us exercising our free speech.

Free speech is the ability to express your ideas, beliefs and opinions freely, without consequence. It doesn't extend into any kind of right to commit a crime. The right to express yourself in words and art is a human right that, in my opinion, we all deserve and need if democracy is to continue to function.

The price of free speech as a society is that we have to extend it to all, whether we like what they say or not. "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The trouble is plenty of people think JK is a bigot too.

She truly is just an old fashioned bigot.

I think you either don't understand your own argument or you are changing the goalposts @Pingu21. You said that free speech should not be free of consequences and I said that it has to be or it's not free, by definition. That's the whole of the argument.

There are lots of people who agree with you - I have mainly heard this from people who are trying to justify why it's okay to threaten JK with rape and death. But I do not agree with you. I believe people should be allowed to express themselves and believe whatever they want without consequence. And this is the fundamental principle of free speech, whether you like it, or understand it, or not.

Kobe Bryant was lauded like a hero - surely if a rapist can get the kind of adulation that man did, so can she.

Sorry @queenofknives was another member of the knife rack using the family brain cell today? Legal restrictions on free speech are still restrictions, so you obviously believe in some restrictions on free speech. I don't think JKR and MC are in the same league, I don't remember JKR supporting apartheid.

Well this is the problem isn't it? It is a principle. You can't say it's okay for JK to express her opinion without being cancelled but not MC, just because you agree with one's views but not the other's. If it's about celebrating tennis (or writing or whatever) then the person's views shouldn't matter. That's my opinion anyway. If you think they do matter enough to stop MC from being celebrated for tennis, fine, but it's no different from people thinking JK's views should stop her from being celebrated as a writer.

And you know what? I explicitly do NOT agree with MCs views on transpeople.

She has a disgust motivated view that sees them as degenerate and influenced by the devil.

So no. I am hard core anti-genderism, but I do not stand with MC's anti- trans views.

MC is a religious fundamentalist whacko who is drenched in homophobia.

I don't know of similar male Australian tennis players of the past who have arenas named after them and have been as vocally foul about gay and lesbian ppl as MC.

I tend to disagree with the renaming mania, but she holds and spreads deeply unpleasant views. She's a genuine homophobe/transphobe, imo.

I know there's a principle, but she's no JKR.

We are judging past morals and values but using today’s moral standards. Gay marriage actually only came into Australia in December 2017!
Margaret was born in 1942 and is a Christian minister - it’s obviously a religious perspective. I think (in the UK at least) we still exempt religious venues from performing gay marriage for example. Baroness Nicholson voted against gay marriage at least once and I don’t want that to be used as a stick to bash her.

MC obviously has a strong moral code and doesn’t seem like a horrible person. She has never, to my knowledge wished people dead (unlike falou) for example.

MC had an astonishing International tennis career and it seems a shame to do a purity spiral cancel on one issue. I’d doubt a man like Bradman would be cancelled on this.

if we found out that say Neil Armstrong or MLK or someone was homophobic and transphobic, would their names be erased from the history books for it? Probably not, because they’re men

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727849/RADA-students-demand-George-Bernard-Shaws-dropped-drama-schools-theatre.html

The woke will target anyone who doesn't reach their exacting - and ever-changing - worldview. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.

Margaret Court is probably one of top three tennis players of all time. She was a total phenomenon.

Her views are awful and I find them repellent. But it’s her tennis that is being honoured, not her personal view points.

Would I rather spend the evening with Billie Jean King? Yes. She was an outstanding feminist and tennis player. She played Court many times and certainly disagrees with her, but it’s tennis that should be the focus, not their personal views.

"I was wondering if we found out that say Neil Armstrong or MLK or someone was homophobic and transphobic, would their names be erased from the history books for it? Probably not, because they’re men."

No one is wiping Margaret courts wins and trophies from the history books. They are thinking of renaming a tennis court. At one point Cecil Rhodes had a country and universities etc named after him. He doesn't anymore.

It’s really odd, isn’t it? Andy Murray says her views go against everything tennis stands for, but as far as I’m concerned, tennis only stands for tennis. It has no meaning beyond that.

I was wondering if we found out that say Neil Armstrong or MLK or someone was homophobic and transphobic, would their names be erased from the history books for it? Probably not, because they’re men.

I don’t agree with MG’s views but she’s entitled to hold them. Her achievements in tennis should still be recognised and celebrated.

"In any case, the point here is not so much whether Court's views are objectionable, but whether a male champion with the same views would be having his name erased. If anyone can find a comparable example happening to a man, I'd be interested to see it."

Israel Folau in rugby union was one of the world's best full back and was easily Australia's best player but had his contract cancelled very publically for expressing his views on same sex marriage etc.

Lots of men have been celebrated at one time or another for great achievements only for this to change as their views or beliefs or actions become incompatible with modern standards or sensibilities.