Dolphins Don Jones suspended for tweeting about Michael Sam

[MmmmBeeeeer]

So how many suspensions are we going to have when the guy starts getting called a faggot over and over during every game?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The most ridiculous thing here...is what Don Jones said couldn't, under any circumstance, be considered anything close to "hate speech"...sets a really bad precedent. Don't get me wrong, this is just a token NFL stupidity tax, but it still sets a bad precedent.

 

[Senser81]

The most ridiculous thing here...is what Don Jones said couldn't, under any circumstance, be considered anything close to "hate speech"...sets a really bad precedent. Don't get me wrong, this is just a token NFL stupidity tax, but it still sets a bad precedent.

I think it sets a good precedent. There is no room for backsliding. As you said, what Jones said wasn't really a "hate speech". I think if Jones had actually said something more hateful (like "silly faggot, dicks are for chicks"), then people would be wondering where the NFL draws the line on this issue. Since Jones said something innocuous ("horrible"), we know now that its truly a zero tolerance situation and anything that could possibly be construed as anti-gay will be punished.

 

[Senser81]

I absolutely believe homosexuals should be free to be who they are ... but eliminating free speech for those against homosexuality is not right either.

What free speech was eliminated?

 

[Goober]

I find this pretty disturbing. NFL has already punished Jones, but people like Rice and Irsay have received no punishment for their actions that were much worse.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I think it sets a good precedent. There is no room for backsliding. As you said, what Jones said wasn't really a "hate speech". I think if Jones had actually said something more hateful (like "silly faggot, dicks are for chicks"), then people would be wondering where the NFL draws the line on this issue. Since Jones said something innocuous ("horrible"), we know now that its truly a zero tolerance situation and anything that could possibly be construed as anti-gay will be punished.

hate speech would be a good place to draw the line.

Not before it...not after it...but right on the line.

Especially in a league where they play a sport that is heavily religion based (well over 50% - IIRC the % is actually north of 60 - of the league comes from Bible Belt states), creates a paradox of intolerance.

A society that doesn't tolerate the intolerant is itself intolerant and thus, unjust.

It is like the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison brings Mr. Slave into class, scissors him, and anyone who is grossed out by the scene is sent to Camp Tolerance.

 

[SethMode]

That would be undermining authority. Different case here. This would be like me calling a neighbor down the street as redneck white trash and my job suspending me over it.

If your neighbor worked for your company and you posted it on Twitter and someone saw it, you would get in trouble. These two gentleman work for the same overarching authority.

I think a better argument for you would be that him saying it was "horrible" isn't on the same level as calling someone, say, redneck white trash. Still, the misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment in this country is staggering. This reminds me of those up-in-arms over A&E suspending that Duck Dynasty guy.

 

[Mesa]

Im not hating on anyone, Im just defending my rights to have a different opinion.

 

[Villain]

That would be undermining authority. Different case here. This would be like me calling a neighbor down the street as redneck white trash and my job suspending me over it.

That's not the same thing. This would be like your neighbor starting a new job with you and you telling all of your coworkers and everyone else on the world that your employer made a horrible decision.

Because that's what he did.

Im not hating on anyone, Im just defending my rights to have a different opinion.

No one is saying that you don't have that right. You have the right to any opinion you like and your employer has the right to fire or suspend you for being an asshole. You also have the right to go work for a different employer who doesn't care if you say dumbass shit online. If you don't see any other place to work, you better shut the fuck up and stop being a dumbass in front of everyone if you want to keep your job or avoid other negative consequences.

 

[bucky]

If your neighbor worked for your company and you posted it on Twitter and someone saw it, you would get in trouble. These two gentleman work for the same overarching authority.

I think a better argument for you would be that him saying it was "horrible" isn't on the same level as calling someone, say, redneck white trash. Still, the misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment in this country is staggering. This reminds me of those up-in-arms over A&E suspending that Duck Dynasty guy.

But isn't it in a sense oppression, using financial pressure to stifle one opinion and support another? As much as I think Rams opinion is retarded, I support his right to have a retarded opinion. It just seems to me, punishing someone for having an opinion that others disagree with is really fighting oppression with oppression.

Beliefs/opinions aren't wrong. It's when a person takes their opinion/belief outside of it's ethical boundaries and crosses over into oppressing others that it becomes wrong. I don't think fighting oppression with oppression is really a good answer.

 

[NAHSTE]

I am absolutely a progressive where these things are concerned, but I can't deny that I worry about the shutdown on free speech where homosexuality is concerned.

Maybe you should brush up on the US Bill of Rights. What's good for America is good for Canada, after all.

 

[Youk]

There wasn't really a rant in this situation either. Dude could have, and probably should have, gotten a talking to about how to use social media properly. The fine and suspension are a pure overreaction to the Sam scenario the league has been walking on pins and needles about since the guy came out.

His tweets are protected now. The fine is an overreaction. The suspension? We all know it's bullshit, he's just suspended from team meetings in MAY. All for show. If teams do not have social media policies with players, they are making a mistake.

 

[Youk]

I love the amount of people here screwing idiocy about free speech and then forgetting that they work for the same overall employer. Big difference between bitching about that fuckhead down the street and a guy that your employer is trying to hype up.

People thinking the law applies here. :lol4:

 

[SethMode]

But isn't it in a sense oppression, using financial pressure to stifle one opinion and support another? As much as I think Rams opinion is retarded, I support his right to have a retarded opinion. It just seems to me, punishing someone for having an opinion that others disagree with is really fighting oppression with oppression.

Beliefs/opinions aren't wrong. It's when a person takes their opinion/belief outside of it's ethical boundaries and crosses over into oppressing others that it becomes wrong. I don't think fighting oppression with oppression is really a good answer.

My argument has nothing to do with right or wrong. Most employers now will force you to sign something that basically says "if you say shit on social media that will make us look bad, we can fire you immediately". I imagine that the NFL does too. If I want to keep my job, I do what they ask me to do, and above all, I use common sense and try not to say anything that's going to make them look bad, despite how "oppressed" that makes me feel. Right or wrong, it's the employer's choice. You can stand up as an unoppressed person that says whatever they want, whenever they want, and not collect a paycheck.

 

[Youk]

I forgot that you're legally entitled to your own opinion at a private company. :bosh:

 

[bucky]

I love the amount of people here screwing idiocy about free speech and then forgetting that they work for the same overall employer. Big difference between bitching about that fuckhead down the street and a guy that your employer is trying to hype up.

People thinking the law applies here. :lol4:

I never mentioned law. Just the ethicality of suppressing one opinion over another. Isn't financially suppressing an opinion a classic definition of oppression? Are you only against oppression when it's a cause you believe in? And don't care about it otherwise?

 

[Youk]

I never mentioned law. Just the ethicality of suppressing one opinion over another. Isn't financially suppressing an opinion a classic definition of oppression? Are you only against oppression when it's a cause you believe in? And don't care about it otherwise?

I believe in the fact that a private company you work for can punish you for your opinions and comments when they aren't in line with their vision. Nothing new here, and nothing wrong here.

 

[bucky]

My argument has nothing to do with right or wrong. Most employers now will force you to sign something that basically says "if you say shit on social media that will make us look bad, we can fire you immediately". I imagine that the NFL does too. If I want to keep my job, I do what they ask me to do, and above all, I use common sense and try not to say anything that's going to make them look bad, despite how "oppressed" that makes me feel. Right or wrong, it's the employer's choice. You can stand up as an unoppressed person that says whatever they want, whenever they want, and not collect a paycheck.

I already know employers are doing this. Well, I am asking you whether you think it is right or wrong. Shouldn't we be supporting what's right and condemning what's wrong no matter what side of an issue we stand on?

 

[buckeye]

I believe in the fact that a private company you work for can punish you for your opinions and comments when they aren't in line with their vision. Nothing new here, and nothing wrong here.

Agreed... it is in nearly every company hiring packet these days. I had to sign one as well. Many other them have amendments for social media as well and companies have fired people for their comments through social media avenues.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Youk]

I already know employers are doing this. Well, I am asking you whether you think it is right or wrong. Shouldn't we be supporting what's right and condemning what's wrong no matter what side of an issue we stand on?

A company needs to have control of what is being put out there. Any good marketing/PR department will tell you that a company needs to have a unified message, no matter the topic. There is no room to hear dissenting opinions, as it makes the company look weak in the business world. If you have an opinion that is different, you do not share it with the public.