Will the Niners send anti-gay player home from SB

[McGinley]

Originally Posted by Cyberjet

Who dictates what is acceptable speech and why? Does government play a role in its influence? The world is not a black and white world. No need to be obnoxious - why do people on this board feel a need to initiate personal attacks?

Who's initiating a personal attack? I simply corrected you.

[DDNYjets]

So what happened? Did he apologize? Does he get to keep his job or is he being sent to Alcotraz?

[Vinny Testaverde's Niece]

Originally Posted by Cyberjet

Who dictates what is acceptable speech and why? Does government play a role in its influence? The world is not a black and white world. No need to be obnoxious - why do people on this board feel a need to initiate personal attacks?

Even though you slept through civics class, it's never too late to learn and catch up.

[Cyberjet]

Originally Posted by Vinny Testaverde's Niece

Even though you slept through civics class, it's never too late to learn and catch up.

Teach me I beg you.

[McGinley]

Originally Posted by Cyberjet

Teach me I beg you.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

When did Freedom of Speech guarantee Freedom from Criticism/Backlash?

[Cyberjet]

Originally Posted by McGinley

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

When did Freedom of Speech guarantee Freedom from Criticism/Backlash?

I never said that freedom of speech guaranteed freedom from backlash or criticism. All I am saying is that the backlash whether it's a criticism or a threat to suspend impacts an individual's freedom to express oneself. We have come to a point in society that people are afraid to speak their mind or for that matter to criticize another opinion. The freedom of speech is a complex matter and the freedom of speech in the private workplace is a very dynamic and controversial area of law that extends simply beyond the 1st amendment. My point being that freedom to speak (whether it is right or wrong - then again who determines that) can be supressed in an insidious manner.

[McGinley]

Originally Posted by Cyberjet

I never said that freedom of speech guaranteed freedom from backlash or criticism. All I am saying is that the backlash whether it's a criticism or a threat to suspend impacts an individual's freedom to express oneself. We have come to a point in society that people are afraid to speak their mind or for that matter to criticize another opinion. The freedom of speech is a complex matter and the freedom of speech in the private workplace is a very dynamic and controversial area of law that extends simply beyond the 1st amendment. My point being that freedom to speak (whether it is right or wrong - then again who determines that) can be supressed in an insidious manner.

Freedom of Speech is only a "complex matter" because people have this idea that it means you can say what you wish without consequence. What people fail to realize is that you're only protected from the GOVERNMENT doing anything to you. Freedom of Speech basically just means the U.S Government won't throw you in jail for expressing your opinion (unless it's inciting people to violence, etc). When people find this out, they go all "DUDE WTF DOE!?", and it then becomes a "complex matter".

Nobody is taping his mouth, nor is the U.S Government jailing him. So, no, his freedom isn't being impacted in any way at all. He can still say as he wishes. Should his employer decide that such an opinion doesn't line up with his organization's and decides to suspend him, that's his business.

[JumbalayaJet]

The biggest mistake was the 49ers allowing this dope to go with Artie Lange. Noone knew how it would turn out?

[Batmans A Scientist]

Originally Posted by Cyberjet

I never said that freedom of speech guaranteed freedom from backlash or criticism. All I am saying is that the backlash whether it's a criticism or a threat to suspend impacts an individual's freedom to express oneself. We have come to a point in society that people are afraid to speak their mind or for that matter to criticize another opinion. The freedom of speech is a complex matter and the freedom of speech in the private workplace is a very dynamic and controversial area of law that extends simply beyond the 1st amendment. My point being that freedom to speak (whether it is right or wrong - then again who determines that) can be supressed in an insidious manner.

You aren't talking about freedom of speech anymore, you are talking about cultural reaction to speech. Which is something entirely different.

For example 60 years ago, you could use the term "Negro" or "kike" more freely, without fear of backlash, but that's no longer the case. When you are talking about a football player that ultimately represents a private organization (or ballboy, or coach), you can't use the term quite as freely today and not expect backlash.

Just because you don't agree with the backlash doesn't mean anyone's freedoms are being suppressed insidiously, it means that cultural norms are shifting (and, of course, the sheer amount of media consumption and outlets are far greater today).

Furthermore, the idea that this is a new thing is borderline laughable. If an athlete 60 years ago made comments about not understanding why people are up in arms about Communism, I can assure you, that would be a big deal. The bottom line, except for a few outliers who don't write about sports normally, no one is talking about suspending anyone.

The thread headline seems somewhat overblown in that it's expressing outrage over a solution that no one is talking about realistically.

[ctjetfan]

Originally Posted by McGinley

A "fruit cake"? Instead of deferring to thinly veiled insults, say what you really want to call me.

By you're, I meant the player or anyone.

[detjetsfan]

Don't you guys get it? The only way we can protect free speech is by censoring people who criticize those who make anti-gay comments.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by JumbalayaJet

The biggest mistake was the 49ers allowing this dope to go with Artie Lange. Noone knew how it would turn out?

Anyone who's listened to Artie's show knows every interview is the same thing:

1. Artie anecdote about some degenerate thing he did back in the day

2. "Do you have gay sex?

3. Another Artie anecdote about (gambling, drug or drinking) back in the day.

4. "Do you enjoy buttsex?"

5. Repeat steps 1-4



To Artie's credit his show has gotten alot better now that Nick Dipaolo is finally gone.

[Cyberjet]

Originally Posted by Batmans A Scientist

You aren't talking about freedom of speech anymore, you are talking about cultural reaction to speech. Which is something entirely different.

For example 60 years ago, you could use the term "Negro" or "kike" more freely, without fear of backlash, but that's no longer the case. When you are talking about a football player that ultimately represents a private organization (or ballboy, or coach), you can't use the term quite as freely today and not expect backlash.

Just because you don't agree with the backlash doesn't mean anyone's freedoms are being suppressed insidiously, it means that cultural norms are shifting (and, of course, the sheer amount of media consumption and outlets are far greater today).

Furthermore, the idea that this is a new thing is borderline laughable. If an athlete 60 years ago made comments about not understanding why people are up in arms about Communism, I can assure you, that would be a big deal. The bottom line, except for a few outliers who don't write about sports normally, no one is talking about suspending anyone.

The thread headline seems somewhat overblown in that it's expressing outrage over a solution that no one is talking about realistically.

Obviously I am not making myself clear - maybe I am and just don't get it. Here's an article that gets into detail my thought process.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/14...f-free-speech/

[RussianGreen]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Nothing. He didnt get thrown in the gulag

Get down on your knees and kiss America Borat!

I love like you and all those little members of gerbil e[chenage program jumped on this thread like it is another talk about your scantbug team cough chiting.

[ginag8500]

Arties best question was whats your over/under for banging white chicks this week???..Artie Rules hilarious...

[fnordcircle]

Originally Posted by Cyberjet

Hardly. We can both agree that getting thrown in jail for something said or as a result of a behavior regardless whether it is bad or good is a repercussion - are you following me Einstein?

Agreed, getting thrown into jail for something said is a repercussion. So is being shot or having your tongue cut out or having your mouth sewn onto your own anus and any number of other scenarios that have no basis in the reality of this situation.

Is it any different that when one speaks his mind that the threat of a suspension or losing one's job is to muffle one's ability to speak freely.

So you are saying there is no difference between the government throwing someone in jail or a private entity deciding to end their professional relationship with someone?

Just want to make sure I follow the huge leap you're making. Because what you're talking about is nanny state bull****. That private entities - corporations, people, etc - should not have the right to respond to what you say. That 'freedom of speech' only extends to the first person to say something.

Talk about PC.

Just curious - so if I start my call off with a client tomorrow by saying something outrageous like, 'Good morning, I'm calling on behalf of Cogswell Cogs, Hitler did nothing wrong.' the company has no right to respond to that and fire me?

Or are you saying that you are arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand that certain things should be able to be spoken with no repercussions whatsoever and you will be the arbiter of what does and does not fall within 'SUPER SPECIAL PROTECTED SPEECH' and what is regular old offensive speech?

[SizzleBear287]

I wish the 49ers had gotten Tebow to see how the most liberal fan base in the NFL would react to having a crazy right-wing Jesus freak as the face of their franchise. F Woody Johnson.

[Cyberjet]

Originally Posted by fnordcircle

Agreed, getting thrown into jail for something said is a repercussion. So is being shot or having your tongue cut out or having your mouth sewn onto your own anus and any number of other scenarios that have no basis in the reality of this situation.



So you are saying there is no difference between the government throwing someone in jail or a private entity deciding to end their professional relationship with someone?

Just want to make sure I follow the huge leap you're making. Because what you're talking about is nanny state bull****. That private entities - corporations, people, etc - should not have the right to respond to what you say. That 'freedom of speech' only extends to the first person to say something.

Talk about PC.

Just curious - so if I start my call off with a client tomorrow by saying something outrageous like, 'Good morning, I'm calling on behalf of Cogswell Cogs, Hitler did nothing wrong.' the company has no right to respond to that and fire me?

Or are you saying that you are arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand that certain things should be able to be spoken with no repercussions whatsoever and you will be the arbiter of what does and does not fall within 'SUPER SPECIAL PROTECTED SPEECH' and what is regular old offensive speech?

You are obviously a pleasant fellow. It's quite evident that you didn't read the article I cited. That is expecting a bit much. You're last paragraph actually sums up pretty much what I have been saying about selective suppression of free speech.

[Demosthenes9]

Originally Posted by fnordcircle

Or are you saying that you are arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand that certain things should be able to be spoken with no repercussions whatsoever and you will be the arbiter of what does and does not fall within 'SUPER SPECIAL PROTECTED SPEECH' and what is regular old offensive speech?

What he's talking about is the "chilling effect" reactions have on a person's ability to speak their mind. If you will, it's a heckler's veto.

Like it or not, some people think that homosexuality is wrong, or, even if they are fine with it, they wouldn't be comfortable having a gay teammate in the locker room with them. But, they can't come out and say that because it's not politically correct.

Nope, everyone MUST conform to the currently accepted orthodoxy, else they face the repercussions.

[sdJETSetter]

Weinies and Cho cha's were meant for procreation. Weiners dont belong in another mans butt. it's natures design.

GoooooooJets!