Everyone is messing this whole thing up and missing the point, this is not or should not even be a free speech issue at all. What it should be is an employer/employee conflict that has nothing to do with free speech. Of course the players should be able to protest the anthem all they want........on their own time. If the NFL does not want them protesting the anthem then they have every right to enforce this rule as they please. I don't think it is a wise business move to handle it this way, but they have the right to do so just as your employer has the right to fire you if you call your boss an asshole to his face. You have every right to do so and your employer has every right to fire you for doing this as well. What the NFL should do if they were smart and they're not, is just quit playing the anthem before games. Seems like a silly out dated jingoistic practice anyway. Either way, they are all going down because the GAME has become a business and political theatre for the employees and I for one being a lifelong NFL fan and historian as a child have totally lost interest and have stopped watching. And to be clear, I have not stopped watching for political reasons, I understand and support the reason why the players are doing this even though I do not think it is actually helping their cause mostly because of the reasons I stated before. The very people the players are trying to reach are never going to listen now because they are viewing it purely through the short sighted jingoistic prism of disrespect to the anthem and are being guided and prodded to by those with an agenda including and especially Trump. He should have gone against his very nature and just have been quiet and let the NFL handle it as they saw fit. If he was smart and we all know he is not, this would have all died down and not have been a problem, but that ship is sailed and there will be absolutely no good that will come with this other than the satisfaction that the NFL is on the decline and will completely fail and the owners will lose their teams and all NFL employees from custodians, cheerleaders and the players themselves will be out of work. Hope everyone is happy.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Apr 23, 2018 - 3:16pm
ziggytrix wrote:
I thought it was spot-on.
Could you elaborate on how active efforts to deny a platform to abhorrent messages is a problem? I'll start you with a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a really passionate believer that people who post on the internet using handles of the format Adjective + Numeral should be chemically and/or physically castrated (for whatever absurd reason). BillG sees me posting horrible (in his opinion) things directed not specifically at you, but very obviously generally about "those adjective-numeral people", and deletes it from his website. How is this a problem?
Now this bleeds into the civil rights argument. Remember that Rand Paul wasn't a proponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I believe his thought was that the government shouldn't regulate what businesses must do - such as serve people of all races. Right or wrong ethically, it's that the government should not get involved in business practices in that way. Superficially I think he's got a point, that we shouldn't legislate what businesses choose to do/not do.
So, should BillG ban people with exclusive or insulting or divisive opinions? If you take Rand Paul's approach, the answer is: it's a business. BillG can do any damn thing he pleases. If it's not a valid business model, then it'll fail on its own.
Or should we legislate what BillG can do when he sets up a forum? Tell him what he can/can't allow? Bring in the FCC?
—-
Finishing up the Rand Paul thing, a little deeper: if they allowed businesses to be racist, as they were then, then the unwanted minorities in an area would be unable to get some staples - like groceries or gas. "You have to go to the colored store for your food" "But, there is no colored grocery store?!" or the colored gas station, etc. I can see where the Civil rights Act was very important in making sure that we didn't exclude races/religions/genders/etc from the marketplace for their own survival - even though it's "modified" capitalism. Rand Paul avoids that inhumane consequence of letting the marketplace make the decisions.
Could you elaborate on how active efforts to deny a platform to abhorrent messages is a problem? I'll start you with a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a really passionate believer that people who post on the internet using handles of the format Adjective + Numeral should be chemically and/or physically castrated (for whatever absurd reason). BillG sees me posting horrible (in his opinion) things directed not specifically at you, but very obviously generally about "those adjective-numeral people", and deletes it from his website. How is this a problem?
Dial back the egregiousness of the speech a little and see if your premise still works.
I was really disappointed in Mr. Munroe when I saw this.
It is willfully obtuse. It doesn't accurately describe the problem. The controversy is not about unpopular messages being ignored, disagreed with, or criticized—it's about active efforts to prevent people from ever hearing them.
I thought it was spot-on.
Could you elaborate on how active efforts to deny a platform to abhorrent messages is a problem? I'll start you with a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a really passionate believer that people who post on the internet using handles of the format Adjective + Numeral should be chemically and/or physically castrated (for whatever absurd reason). BillG sees me posting horrible (in his opinion) things directed not specifically at you, but very obviously generally about "those adjective-numeral people", and deletes it from his website. How is this a problem?
I was really disappointed in Mr. Munroe when I saw this.
It is willfully obtuse. It doesn't accurately describe the problem. The controversy is not about unpopular messages being ignored, disagreed with, or criticized—it's about active efforts to prevent people from ever hearing them.
It's ok with me, too ... as long as she allows her students the same freedom to express their views and not penalize them with disrespect in the classroom or with unfair grades should they disagree with her.
If they disagree with her outside the classroom, correct. In the classroom, it's her job to direct the conversation, it's not supposed to be all-voices-are-valid.
It's ok with me, too ... as long as she allows her students the same freedom to express their views and not penalize them with disrespect in the classroom or with unfair grades should they disagree with her.
Â
That is actually a different scenario, that would be unfairly using her position of power and influence over her students and being unprofessional in the workplace. That type of behavior would be infringing on her students right of free speech not to mention subjective indoctrination of young impressionable minds. I went from being raised to be a conservative though naturally and inherently completely denying bigotry and racism from the littlest shorty to being a full fledged indoctrinated liberal Democrat after college. Then as I gained true life experience in real world sitchyashuns, I realized to freely allow yourself to be a label is quite foolish. Life is so much more complex than that and so are we.
It's ok with me, too ... as long as she allows her students the same freedom to express their views and not penalize them with disrespect in the classroom or with unfair grades should they disagree with her.
i agree
as foolish as she sounds, firing her probably wouldn't change her position
if someone peacefully confronted her with a little bit of reason and logic, she might even understand the error of her ways
Fresno President Joseph Castro said in a statement that Jarrar's comments were "made as a private citizen, not as a representative of Fresno State," and "are obviously contrary to the core values of our University, which include respect and empathy for individuals with divergent points of view, and a sincere commitment to mutual understanding and progress."
But this statement has not satisfied the many conservatives on Twitter who want Fresno to fire her. Disappointingly, The Daily Wire—the conservative website run by Ben Shapiro—also seems to want something more from Fresno. The Daily Wire's Ryan Saavedra writes:
The key line in Fresno State's statement is: "Her statements were made as a private citizen, not as a representative of Fresno State." That line most likely signals that the university is not going to take a hard stand over the hateful remarks from this professor who mocked the death of an American icon and rejoiced in the suffering of her family.
I agree she was using Bush's death in a self indulgent look at me and how cool I am with my totally inapprops statement or in other words as the kids say, she was thirsty. lol Tacky, but it is an infringement of her 1st amendment right as a private citizen for her to lose her job over this. Cause that's just her opinion, man.
It's ok with me, too ... as long as she allows her students the same freedom to express their views and not penalize them with disrespect in the classroom or with unfair grades should they disagree with her.
That freedom of assembly should not come at the cost of public safety though. Our peaceful little town is being invaded by the same Neo Nazi bunch that totally ruined Charlottesville emotionally and financially. I heard they were banned from the state of Virginia and our Mayor, local council and police are going to just allow them to saunter in here and fvck everything up?? We have filed an injunction, but it don't look good, they are flying under the banner of free speech, but this is inciting violence straight up.
Fresno President Joseph Castro said in a statement that Jarrar's comments were "made as a private citizen, not as a representative of Fresno State," and "are obviously contrary to the core values of our University, which include respect and empathy for individuals with divergent points of view, and a sincere commitment to mutual understanding and progress."
But this statement has not satisfied the many conservatives on Twitter who want Fresno to fire her. Disappointingly, The Daily WireÂâthe conservative website run by Ben Shapiroâalso seems to want something more from Fresno. The Daily Wire's Ryan Saavedra writes:
The key line in Fresno State's statement is: "Her statements were made as a private citizen, not as a representative of Fresno State." That line most likely signals that the university is not going to take a hard stand over the hateful remarks from this professor who mocked the death of an American icon and rejoiced in the suffering of her family.
Â
I agree she was using Bush's death in a self indulgent look at me and how cool I am with my totally inapprops statement or in other words as the kids say, she was thirsty. lol Tacky, but it is an infringement of her 1st amendment right as a private citizen for her to lose her job over this. Cause that's just her opinion, man.
Fresno President Joseph Castro said in a statement that Jarrar's comments were "made as a private citizen, not as a representative of Fresno State," and "are obviously contrary to the core values of our University, which include respect and empathy for individuals with divergent points of view, and a sincere commitment to mutual understanding and progress."
But this statement has not satisfied the many conservatives on Twitter who want Fresno to fire her. Disappointingly, The Daily Wire—the conservative website run by Ben Shapiro—also seems to want something more from Fresno. The Daily Wire's Ryan Saavedra writes:
The key line in Fresno State's statement is: "Her statements were made as a private citizen, not as a representative of Fresno State." That line most likely signals that the university is not going to take a hard stand over the hateful remarks from this professor who mocked the death of an American icon and rejoiced in the suffering of her family.
