re: Should Stephen Smith have been suspended by ESPN after Ray Rice comments?

quote:

---

Women want equal rights, so if she is on camera hitting him first WHY DONT these same women who are moaning demand she be charged by police also.

---

She was initially charged along with Rice, but the charges were dropped on both of them.

quote:

---

Posted by SpidermanTUba

---

You are such an idiot.

(no message)

There's an entire Deadspin archive of the kinds of stuff that goes on behind closed doors at ESPN that doesn't result in a public suspension.


I don't agree with SAS's position but feel he shouldn't be singled out by ESPN considering the kind of stuff they hush up and that SAS's job is to be a provocative a-hole.

Suspending SAS for being a provocative idiot is like suspending Jemele Hill for being a stupid racist bitch.

No

1. Because he didn't say anything bad
2. If he did, who cares
3. ESPN makes a lot of money from the subtext of racial tension and sexism on the show
4. They encourage controversy
5. He said the "n word" and wasn't suspended or even reprimanded
6. If you're going to punish him (which they shouldn't) at least be consistent. Rob Parker was fired for all intents and purposes and rush limbaugh was canned for saying the NFL and media want a successful black QB.
7. At first glance his comments do seem as portrayed but listening to it, it's clear that he wanted to acknowledge some men hit women because the woman is beating the bajesus out of him. He tried to deliver his thoughts in the manner best suited for the new PC world and it came out awkwardly
8. He says his comments were misunderstood...why wouldn't they take him at his word? He was vague and did preface his statements with profuse condemnation of spousal/domestic abuse. Suspending him limits his on air "creativity" (which makes them a shite ton of money), shows a level of distrust for their employee, and kind of slanders him. They should've backed him instead they fed him to the wolves. Women can provoke people as well. They aren't a dez of 100% non violent people. I've seen black women go fricking nuts. My black female coworker has told me it's different and then I recall solange going after jay z...he didn't hit her, but she certainly provoked him

He should have said

"Men do no own a monopoly on violence, and I don't think that's acknowledged enough"

OR

"Violence is unacceptable regardless of your sex, race, religion, etc."

"Provocation" was a poor word choice. Now if they were talking about sexual assault and he said that? Different story.

This suspension is outrageous. I watched Smith's comments and then after the controversy erupted watched them again. He emphasized over and over again that there is no justification for violence against women and that any man who strikes a woman for whatever reason should be punished. His comments about provocation were really a minor part of his commentary.

Here is the problem. There are all kinds of assaults that are committed in which Person A provokes Person B to act in a violent way. A person in a bar taunts another person, and the person who was taunted strikes the person making the taunt. The taunt may "explain" why Person B hit Person A, but in the eyes of the law the provocation is irrelevant to whether the crime of assault was committed. To say that Person A provoked Person B is not to say that Person B doesn't deserve punishment. It is not to say that Person A is responsible for Person B's behavior. Rather, it merely states that Person B was provoked by Person A, and Person B responded illegally by committing a violent act against Person A. Taunting or other provocation is never a justification for violence.

I have seen incidents in which such taunting occurs and violence results. Does that justify the violence? Of course not. Should the person who commits the violence pay the consequences? Of course. Is the person taunting the other person responsible for the violent actions of the assailant? Of course not.

The fact is that there are some people--women included--whose actions provoke another person to use violence. Without the provocation the violence would not occur. However, that does not mean that a woman--even one who "provokes" another to violence--is in any way responsible for the violent actions of the assailant. I am sure that Stephen Smith did not mean to convey in any way that "women deserve to be physically assaulted" if they taunt a man or otherwise "provoke" him. To read into Smith's comments the suggestion that women are responsible for the violent actions against them is a delusion.

This board probably agrees with him.

quote:

---

This board probably agrees with him.

---

Not the point.
This board hopefully agrees shutting down speech is not a good endpoint.

Do you?