Independent thought by women must be punished

[MissLucyEyelesbarrow]

Margaret Court, one of the most successful woman tennis players of all time, may have her name removed from a stadium, because of her views on same sex marriage and trans athletes link. And Andy Murray is all for it

I agree with Court on trans athletes; I totally disagree with her on same sex marriage, but she is entitled to hold her views and to express them. She isn't, I think, a particularly pleasant person but - guess what? Most elite athletes are arseholes, because they only succeed though ruthless focus on their own goals, and everyone else is pushed aside. But it's only women who are punished for this - or for wrong think.

All over the world, sporting venues are named after men, many of whom have done far worse than hold views that are now unpopular. How many venues will be named after Kobe Bryant, self-confessed rapist, for example? Most male sports have a huge homophobia problem. What are we doing about that? Very little.

But one thing named after a woman? That cannot stand. And an uppity woman who is no longer young and pretty? Even worse. She must be punished

You're being silly now where did I say anything about people deserving to have achievements taken away from them?

Having a building named after you isn't an achievement. It's done as an honour or a sign of respect for the person. A person who is not longer worthy of that honour or respect should have their name removed.

@Marisishidinginmyattic

You're being silly now where did I say anything about people deserving to have achievements taken away from them?

Having a building named after you isn't an achievement. It's done as an honour or a sign of respect for the person. A person who is not longer worthy of that honour or respect should have their name removed.

OK, so should JKR and Martina have honours removed, because some people think their views are vile? Who is the arbiter of which views are acceptable? Why is your belief that Court's views are vile any more valid than a TRA's views on JKR and Martina?

Apologies, I'm perhaps too used to people framing one part of the truth to influence others in a particular direction.
You're making two points I think- on the one hand I agree women receive more abuse on SM than men, and women more generally are held to a double standard regarding behaviour, including (especially?) athletes.
On the specific point of Margaret Court- I do agree with free speech and worry about cancel culture, academic freedom, and the horrific abuse people receive on Twitter for voicing any sort of opinion. However, I don't believe freedom of speech should mean freedom from consequences- the question is whether Court's views and the image that projects to young tennis players outweigh her exploits on the court. I am neither Australian nor a tennis fan so don't care either way really, but I can understand why Navratilova and others might think the stadium naming an undeserved honour.

Freedom of speech MUST mean freedom from consequences. If there are consequences of speech then it's not free. People are either free to say what they think or not. You can't say you support free speech but you think there should be consequences for it. Sorry but that's just nonsense.

It should be “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from disagreement”

“Consequences“ is too vague and allows in possibilities like “your speech is free even if you know I’ll shout you if you say the wrong thing”.

@quesnofknives Sorry, what you're saying is just not true. You can support freedom of speech without supporting it absolutely, in every case. Or do you support the right of people to harass their neighbours on the grounds of colour or sexuality? Or to call for others to be killed?
Anyway, expressing opinions has always carried consequences. You can lose friends, be frozen out of work networks, businesses get boycotted etc. Tell your boss they're a twat and see how far you get, even if it's true.

Ugh shoot not shout

No I think harassment is against the law as is incitement to commit murder. And I wouldn't insult my boss but that doesn't mean I don't or shouldn't have the right to. The examples you give of people losing their jobs or friends for expressing opinions only show that speech isn't always free, not that it shouldn't be. You cannot tell people they can only express their opinions and beliefs if they are prepared to risk their wellbeing and still call it free speech - that is a nonsense.

You don't have to support free speech but you can't change the definition of it to suit your purposes.

@FWRLurker

It should be “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from disagreement”

“Consequences“ is too vague and allows in possibilities like “your speech is free even if you know I’ll shout you if you say the wrong thing”.

Yes, absolutely. There's no right to not be disagreed with. But there certainly is a right to express thoughts and beliefs without "consequences". JK should have the right to express her views without consequences, but of course that doesn't mean no debate or disagreement. But it does mean no abuse, no economic sanctions, no violence, no attack on her wellbeing and so on.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@queenofknives

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.

Oh, one can support the principle of not memory holing her tennis achievements, without claiming her as a martyr for the cause of sex-based rights.

She truly is just an old fashioned bigot.

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

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."

@queenofknives

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

But they'd be wrong.

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