re: Rams won't apologize...

quote:

---

The big reason I watch sports is to escape politics and the dumb shite that goes along with it. This is simply another turn off for me and pushes me a little further from the NFL. There is no way in hell I could support that team in any way.

---

Pretty much how I feel. The NFL is basically condoning their 'hands up' statement by not disciplining these players.

quote:

---

You think people would stop watching the Saints if some players stuck their hands in the air?

---

Yes. A lot of people don't want their sports infused with politics and would be disgusted by a political statement based on a divisive and false narrative.

I use to watch berman and jackson every week until they ganged up on rush, have no desire to watch the loudmouths anymore. People do indeed lose interest fast with hacks like costas. I don't even think a boycott needs to be called for. These arse clowns turn people off all by themselves.

A couple of quick thoughts that may have already been addressed....

1st... What ever rights we have, particularly in regards to an event such as this in Ferguson, is predicated on facts and reality.. We do not get to invent facts to suit our own narrative...

2nd... A labor lawyer would need to chime in on this with more substantive info but clearly when you are "on the job" your rights with regard to expressing opinions changes...

The argument that this is a freedom of speech issue is ridiculous. Freedom of speech is a right derived from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and applies to government restriction of speech. Private entities--businesses, clubs, NFL football teams--are free to take action to limit the speech of employees or members. Most private entities give their employers or members wide latitude to speak as they would like and do not restrict what they say, but that is a choice.

For instance, the right to stake out a position against female reporters in the locker room or to express discomfort about having a gay teammate is protected speech, insofar as the government cannot restrict said speech. But the NFL fines or suspends players for saying things all the time. The First Amendment does not protect an NFL player from punishment by his team if he says something that greatly offends people or embarrasses the team or the league. If a player came out in favor of child sexual abuse or performance-enhancing drugs or against having gay teammates or women in the locker room, do you think that the NFL would be saying "freedom of speech" as a defense for the player's speech? When Johnny Manziel flipped the bird at the opposing team's sideline, did the NFL say that Manziel has a free speech right to express his views toward the opponent? No, of course not--he was fined for the content of his actions.

What we have here is the NFL team siding with one side over the other in the Ferguson case and using the "freedom of speech" canard for cover. That the speech took place while the players were coming on to the field and in uniform gives the NFL or the team much wider latitude in limiting their controversial speech. The NFL and team chose not to exercise their discretion. I am all in favor of NFL teams giving their players the right to say what they would like, but if they are going to adopt a "free speech" policy it should be equally applicable to all speech, not just speech approved by the league.

quote:

---

The argument that this is a freedom of speech issue is ridiculous. Freedom of speech is a right derived from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and applies to government restriction of speech. Private entities--businesses, clubs, NFL football teams--are free to take action to limit the speech of employees or members. Most private entities give their employers or members wide latitude to speak as they would like and do not restrict what they say, but that is a choice. For instance, the right to stake out a position against female reporters in the locker room or to express discomfort about having a gay teammate is protected speech, insofar as the government cannot restrict said speech. But the NFL fines or suspends players for saying things all the time. The First Amendment does not protect an NFL player from punishment by his team if he says something that greatly offends people or embarrasses the team or the league. If a player came out in favor of child sexual abuse or performance-enhancing drugs or having gay teammates or women in the locker room, do you think that the NFL would be saying "freedom of speech" as a defense for the player's speech? When Johnny Manziel flipped the bird at the opposing team's sideline, did the NFL say that Manziel has a free speech right to express his views toward the opponent? No, of course not--he was fined for the content of his actions. What we have here is the NFL team siding with one side over the other in the Ferguson case and using the "freedom of speech" canard for cover. That the speech took place while the players were coming on to the field and in uniform gives the NFL or the team much wider latitude in limiting their controversial speech. The NFL and team chose not to exercise their discretion. I am all in favor of NFL teams giving their players the right to say what they would like, but if they are going to adopt a "free speech" policy it should be equally applicable to all speech, not just speech approved by the league.

---

This is the most articulate and well thought out post on the subject.

It is hypocritical for the NFL to ostracize / ban / fine players for tweeting "gross" after Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend and to not have an equal reaction to this incident.

That said it's a sad comment on society when we get our collective panties in a wad about what a bunch of guys that play a boys game say or do while at the same time ignoring far more consequential topics.

quote:

---

I am so confident that the Rams players are such law-abiding citizens--never driving while intoxicated, never using illegal drugs, etc.--that I am sure that they can withstand the scrutiny of the St. Louis-area police. It would be a terrible shame if an important starting player stumbled with the law and was arrested for driving while under the influence or some other violation of the law.

---

I suspect a "no quarter" order will go out on the Rams players, and ownership.

quote:

---

if you stop trying to dominate people who have a different opinion

---

quote:

---

I am so confident that the Rams players are such law-abiding citizens--never driving while intoxicated, never using illegal drugs, etc.--that I am sure that they can withstand the scrutiny of the St. Louis-area police. It would be a terrible shame if an important starting player stumbled with the law and was arrested for driving while under the influence or some other violation of the law.

---

The cops don't cut anyone slack on DWIs now. So I don't really understand what you're getting at, but it is kinda creepy you seem to prefer a system where the cops let off people they like and arrest those they don't.