Triple Olympic gold medal winner, Stephanie Rice, who tweeted: ''Suck on that faggots!'' after the Australian Wallabies last-minute Tri Nations win over South Africa on Sept 5, attracted public condemnation and promptly lost her Jaguar sponsorship after her outburst. She has been made to return her A$100,000-plus (US$93,000) XF vehicle.
The 22-year-old swimmer tweeted in the same message which was later deleted: "Probs the best game I've ever seen!! Well done boys."
She has since made a tearful public apology last Wednesday for her comment on Twitter, saying her words were thoughtless but not meant to offend.
"I made a comment on Twitter on Saturday night in the excitement of the moment. I did not mean to cause offence and I apologise," she wrote in a blog on her website.
Former National Rugby League star and gay rights advocate Ian Roberts called her comments "inexcusable".
"It's a hurtful, spiteful, hatred-inciting comment," he said on 3AW radio. Roberts, possibly the most prominent national sportsmen in Australia to come out as gay in 1995, called Rice a complete idiot and called on her sponsors to dump her.
According to the Herald, Rice reportedly earns A$800,000 in endorsements from Davenport, SunRice, Speedo and Telstra. Davenport was reportedly released a statement saying it did not condone Rice's comment but made no announcement about withdrawing its support for her.
Using his own Twitter account, openly gay Olympic gold medallist and diver Matthew Mitcham said Rice's comments were "offensive and thoughtless", but he knew his friend of two years was not a homophobe.
"She luvs gays but used very ill-chosen language," Mitcham tweeted. "I agree, it was offensive & very thoughtless, but being friends with her for 2yrs, I know she is not homophobic."
"She meant no malice, & she has apologised for her careless comment posted in the excitement of the moment", he wrote. "That's enough for me to forgive a friend."
Mitcham, also 22, also added that the furore surrounding Rice's comments was "a wake up call" to parts of society "that they can easily offend without meaning to, eg. that's so gay".
Gary Burns, a prominent gay rights activist has said that even though Rice’s anti-gay slur was offensive, it did not warrant the “hysterical” reaction it got.
Burns, who has previously taken legal action against a series of high profile Australians over what he claimed were homophobic comments, said the swimmer was being persecuted unfairly.
“What I am concerned about is that she has lost her Jag sponsorship, which is really unfair, because there are people out there that are on this witch-hunt to destroy this girl,” the Sydney Morning Herald quoted him as saying.
“I deal with people who I believe publicly vilify homosexuals… but what Stephanie Rice did was make a mistake. She apologised for that mistake, but I now believe people are using her as a wedge.
“Yes, it is offensive, but it is not vilification, it is not hatred,” he added.
Should sponsors stick by Stephanie Rice since she has apologised?
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
I'm of the view that, no, people definitely can't be throwing these terms around in a derogatory manner. But I think it's perfectly fine for us to use these words in the right way around our friends etc....is this double standards?...I don't think so...somebody used the "n"-word as an example - pretty much taboo for non-blacks to say it, but okay amongst blacks. This is the way it is, I understand this, and I am fine with this. And I think it's a similar case here.
Did she deserve to lose her contract?..Maybe, maybe not, but let's call it a lesson hard learnt :)
Peace! xoxo
It's fine, maybe, when you say to your friends jokingly in private, but she typed it out like a statement in a popular public community website. She could have read back her tweet, think that it might offend people and not posted it at all. As people say, "Think before you speak" or, in this case, "Think before you type!"
Ian Roberts is a fallen star .. he had 15 minutes of fame back in 90's and thats it. He is trying to make waves now supposedly being a great gay activist. Grow up Australia !!
It's not ok to use terms that offend minorities,
for any reason - be it a joke, or slang, or otherwise.
Stephanie Rice may not be homophobic,
but her off-handed comment shows
a lack of understanding about how such terms
reflect and reinforce an acceptance of abuse in the general community.
We no longer accept abuse or abusive language
towards black people or women.
And yet it's still ok to use the word "gay",
to mean "stupid" or abnormal".
Likewise there are still many people who think
it's - fashionably politically incorrect - to use words
like "faggot".
The fact that such terms are still accepted by some,
indicates that there is still some way to go,
in addressing homophobic attitudes in our communities.
The positive side of this is that there "was" a strong
reaction against this comment.
Once Stephanie realised (afterwards) what she had done,
she was very apologetic.
This is not an issue of "punishing someone for a mistake",
but about making a clear statement that "abuse (in any form)
against any group in the community is not acceptable".
Really... "Suck on that, faggots?" Hope she misses driving that pretty new free Jaguar. It's not really political correctness run amok, it's like the other two posters said. You wouldn't expect or tolerate ANY sports figure grabbing a microphone after a big win and saying, "How'd ya like that? Lick my ass, niggers!"
It really is absolutely no different. At all.
This story's the perfect example of political-correctness gone mad indeed. B-/
after defeating Tiger Woods at a golf
tournament - someone exclaimed
"suck on that, Niggers!".
The obvious point is that some discriminatory
language is still "so accepted" -
that even Gay people think it's ok when they
hear public figures using it.
Bt at least she's made an apology...well maybe it's insincere, you can argue, because of the 'pain' of losing the car sponsorship...that may be true,too. Bt the point is: the PC police made it seem as though she's commited MURDER...what they're trying to do is to vilify her, making her a pariah...how's that behavior any different fr a religious fanatic toward gay people??? After all, it's not like she utters 'faggot' a la Thio Li Ann for 'homosex' - repeatedly, deliberately, and with disdain & scorn....give her a break.
Stephanie Rice.
It is an issue of the use of popular language,
reflecting and reinforcing abuse.
The main reaction was NOT an attack on the
personal character of S. Rice.
It was, and still is, an issue of the casual use
of discriminatory language.
(I can stop "sighing" now) :)
It is only after jag withdrew her sponsorship did she issue the apology.
It is not about political correctness . it is about being thoughtless and careless.
The fact is in the "moment" of excitement, she typed in those words, she didn't blurt it out through her mouth, but her fingers.
To err is human, but the 'persecution" ( if you can call this that!) is a consequence of her actions. Too bad she will probably be remembered for it. Of coure to forgive is divine.
OH I am sure she is a nice aussie gal who are have gay friends ( she says she has lots of gay friends in her press release) , like what Mitcham said. May be those friends are ok with her with that word. ( ?)
Just like Miss Universe Competition, no matter how greedy, bitchy you are, when stand on stage, smartly act your role, you score. Public wants idol that are charmful, good. If you feel bad, keep it in your room with no body or with a group friends of you that fine with your grievances/craziness.
When we are in work, pleasant personalities always scores in front of boss/customers granted boss/customers are so "suck".
Stepfanie Rice should aware her twitter carries not her name alone, but a national name, sport name as well, should like other big superstars process and rehearse before giving your opinions.
What worries me about all the oxygen that this saga generates is that it could promote hatred by those who wish create further unease by capitalising on the 'fact' that Rice is now being hounded, persecuted, and punished, making her the victim, and the gay community as vindictive. (especially when the public see her tears)
Whatever her motive, she has apologised. What else can you expect her to do in the aftermath? Maybe the benefit of the doubt should be given. She has learned a lesson, in the most public of ways, and maybe other people would also take a lesson from it, especially the young.
While such behaviour is never to be condoned, maybe graciousness in accepting the apology individually, or as a whole community would be of enormous diplomatic benefit.
is by the MEDIA.
This is what they do !
They take a legitimate issue -
and instead of discussing it logically,
like we are doing here -
they use inflammatory comments
and biased reporting to stir up reactions.
The general response to this issue,
by most of the community, (including
the gay community), is NOT one of "Hysteria".
It is a balanced and reasonable response.
IE : discussion of the impact of inappropriate
discriminatory language.
AGAIN ....
this is NOT about
(a) Stephanie Rice or
(b) the Media's attempts to create a story about
"hysterical gays" or
(c) the (inferred) tendency of Gay people and Prestigious Car Companies, to "unfairly hound, persecute, and punish"
The STORY is, (yet again), sold by the MEDIA
at the expense of the REAL ISSUE.
( I know I am being very optimistic here)
cool heads ARE prevailing in our community.
There is
NO STORY
NO HYSTERICAL RIGHT WING GAYS
just an ISSUE clouded by smoke and mirrors.
===
Let's look at the facts...
(a) The media fished for comments from the gay
community.
(b) They used 2 comments.. yes .. just ""2"".
One from Ian Roberts - condemning her comments and
Two from Gary Burns who made the unsubstantiated "claim" that there was an hysterical reaction...
FROM WHO??
There was no Hysterical Reaction.
Just because Gary Burns is a (quote) "prominent gay activist", doesn't mean he has surveyed the gay community and found an overwhelming hysterical reaction.
There is no support to either the comment by Burns
or of the Headline which is based "completely" on
this unsubstantiated comment.
WAKE UP..
there is NOT a mob of Hysterical Gays
running up and down Oxford St,
demanding the lynching of Stephanie Rice !!!
==
There is a saying...
"don't believe everything you read".
But you cant say things like that in public
A hard lesson for SR but I applaud Jaguar for standing by their principles
Then thats great! I truly hope you are right.
(But maybe somebody ought to encourage Ian Roberts to cool down)
you just identified the "one-man lynch mob"
"Ian Roberts"
and I'm sure in retrospect he might also modify
his response.
Perhaps the "prominent gay activist"
based his theory of hysteria on this one
comment also?
Who knows...there is no data in the article,
just unsubstantiated, sensational comments.
But that's the problem here.
The media doesn't care about how
- entrenched homophobia - and the
- resulting discrimination -
affect the gay community.
They only care about THE STORY...
not the ISSUE.
you are missing the point completely.
ONE PERSON overreacted (Ian Roberts).
There IS NO HYSTERIA...
It's all in your mind .....hehe :)
====
oh...and by the way ...
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD
would like to thank all those who
participated and fuelled their unsubstantiated
story - by AGREEING that - (names unknown) -
are OVERREACTING.
(1) The Gay Community
(2) Stephanie Rice and
(3) Ian Roberts
Oh...and let's not forget..
the 4th victim.
The one created every time a newspaper is sold...
THE TRUTH.
"There was an old woman who lived in a shoe...."
Ooops...now was that in a Fairytale
or a Newspaper?
Hehe ...just realised..
they're the same thing :)
a) she lost the Jaguar and their sponsorship.
b) afraid of losing more lucrative sponsors.
c) genuinely remorseful that her innermost thoughts were made public.
Regardless, kudos to Jaguar for taking a stand against homophobia.
Either let it all go or go after everyone. Otherwise you just look like hypocrites.
"Otherwise you just look like hypocrites."
WHO EXACTLY?
No one is persecuting her??
Unless you are referring to Ian Roberts and Jaguar?
[ and #48 there is no "outcry" or attempts to
"humiliate or punish her further"??
- Just a media campaign to sell papers/get ratings].
The rest of us are having a sensible discussion about the ISSUE
- not about her.
NOTE :
I have just gone through every one of the past 49 posts.
NOT EVEN ONE of them even remotely
"persecutes,humiliates or seeks further punishment".
NONE of the comments are hypocritical or hysterical.
So for those posters who keep defending THE ARTICLE,
(ie. The MEDIA's misrepresentation of the facts),
just be aware that is what you are doing.
You are doing NOTHING to help Stephanie Rice
by helping the media to muddy the waters further.
The only thing you achieve by doing this is to
distract people from the REAL ISSUE.
IE.
(1) the casual use of discriminatory language.
(2) the impact of such language.
(3) the need to continue addressing entrenched homophobia and discrimination against the gay community.
WAKE UP and see the issue for what it is !
And learn to read between the lines, rather than
being agents of the Media's ignorance and
misinformation.
It's unfortunate that the Media's "product"
is the sale of a "Story" rather than the balanced
discussion of "Issues".
Like anything.. if we stop "buying" ..
then the "product" will eventually change.
"Old Woman Who Lives In a Shoe"
A rival newspaper discovered that the Primary Source
for this Article was in fact a Shoe Salesman, (Mr B.),
keen to break into the lucrative Real Estate market.
The "Old Woman" was a 25 year old who recently
graduated from University, and due to a few too many
sleepless nights, (doing assignments), had Panda Eyes
and a few very small wrinkles.
She had purchased a pair of Shoes from Mr B
and was using the shoe box as a temporary home
for her pet Mouse.
On the basis of Mr B's sensational and unsubstantiated claim,
Sydney Morning Herald decided to run with the story,
which resulted in a net gain of a 14% increase in
Newspaper sales for that day, (compared to the
previous week).
A junior reporter had presented a well researched article,
titled "Media Madness - Reading between the lines"
which was to run in place of "Old Woman Who Lives In a Shoe"
The junior reporter's article was ceremonially burned on the stake
and the reporter put through the paper shredder.
Or maybe it was the other way round?
Please log in to use this feature.