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

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.

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

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.

@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.

She thinks trans (and gay) kids are the work of the devil. Literally.

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.

@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.

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

@KayakingOnDown

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.

Where did I say she shouldn't be able to express her nasty views? I didn't.

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.

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.

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.

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.