Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 99

Thread: Will the Niners send anti-gay player home from SB

  1. #61
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    14,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberjet View Post
    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.

  2. #62
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    So what happened? Did he apologize? Does he get to keep his job or is he being sent to Alcotraz?

  3. #63
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    7,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberjet View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinny Testaverde's Niece View Post
    Even though you slept through civics class, it's never too late to learn and catch up.
    Teach me I beg you.

  5. #65
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    14,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberjet View Post
    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?
    Last edited by McGinley; 01-31-2013 at 02:24 PM.

  6. #66
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by McGinley View Post
    "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.

  7. #67
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    14,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberjet View Post
    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.
    Last edited by McGinley; 01-31-2013 at 02:47 PM.

  8. #68
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    15,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    The biggest mistake was the 49ers allowing this dope to go with Artie Lange. Noone knew how it would turn out?

  9. #69
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberjet View Post
    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.

  10. #70
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by McGinley View Post
    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.

  11. #71
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  12. #72
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JumbalayaJet View Post
    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.

  13. #73
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Batmans A Scientist View Post
    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/

  14. #74
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,683
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    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.

  15. #75
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    FORT LAUDERDALE
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    BEST QUESTION...

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

  16. #76
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberjet View Post
    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?

  17. #77
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  18. #78
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by fnordcircle View Post
    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.

  19. #79
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by fnordcircle View Post
    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.

  20. #80
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Durham, CA
    Posts
    8,478
    Post Thanks / Like
    Weinies and Cho cha's were meant for procreation. Weiners dont belong in another mans butt. it's natures design.

    GoooooooJets!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us