|
Replies: 27
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [2758]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2872
Joined: 2/14/03
|
First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
Feb 10, 2023, 5:25 PM
|
|
by saying I am only asking this out of curiosity. There is absolutely no other intent otherwise. I just read where an NBA player was fined $40k for making an anti gay remark. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech so what was the violation? I think the answer is that his remark was disparaging. However, who decides the definition of “disparaging?” What might be disparaging to some might not be to others. Just to be a wise-@s, is “He’s a Coot” disparaging? It would be to some. Again, just curious. Would like to hear how an attorney would argue this in court.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [56756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39624
Joined: 11/12/04
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
11
11
Feb 10, 2023, 5:26 PM
|
|
The NBA is not the Government
Well, maybe a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese government but not the US government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7940]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10413
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
6
6
Feb 10, 2023, 5:37 PM
|
|
1st protects your speech among other things from gov intervention. I am sure his contract with the franchise stipulates his behavior including speech plus fines for a breech which he gladly signed
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 884
Joined: 9/23/01
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
1
Feb 10, 2023, 5:57 PM
|
|
You are absolutely correct!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 3740
Joined: 9/5/20
|
True. But America was always agree to disagree.
1
Feb 10, 2023, 6:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this ] |
|
10 years ago, this would not have been an issue. 20 years ago absolutely not. 20 years ago you could’ve said anything you wanted. Because words are not violence. The supreme court has a firm that even hate speech is protected under the first amendment. The problem with these things is who determines what is hateful. Who determines what is hurtful. These girls now online freak out if someone simply looks at them in a gym. Never mind they’re dressing and acting in a way to illicit people looking at them. We are living in bizarro world at the moment. The phrase yes you have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequences. Nobody said that 10 years ago. Well maybe a few far left radicals, but no one with common sense in the general population. That has never been what America was about. The irony and hypocrisy of the left, however, is revealed in the how they respond to rap lyrics because rappers can say anything they want and the left sits on their hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22215]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7083
Joined: 8/31/03
|
But, here is the legal question.
1
1
Feb 10, 2023, 6:46 PM
|
|
Can a private business take away your constitutional rights? Clearly they can, to some extent. The question is where is the line drawn?
Can a person who is employed by a private organziation be forbidden to express his beliefs based on his religion?
THAT is the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19594]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16895
Joined: 9/5/02
|
I want my employees to have opinions.
Feb 10, 2023, 8:49 PM
|
|
But I like the fact that I can control their language and appearance in front of customers.
It's a hard line to walk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 3740
Joined: 9/5/20
|
Yes, they can limit some rights.
Feb 19, 2023, 3:16 PM
[ in reply to But, here is the legal question. ] |
|
Another reason to work for a small company, a medium-size company or start your own business. The reality is major. Corporations are not the majority employers in America. It’s small businesses, family owned, businesses, medium size businesses. Major corporations aren’t even close to being the major employer for most people in America. And another thing about working for a company like that. Is they determine how much money you make unless you work for a commission so they determine your value. You’re letting other people control your value, your self worth and even your rights.
The problem with big tech is they are in fact working in collusion with and at the behest of the federal government state governments and the FBI and CIA. This has been proven by the Twitter files. This is the literal definition of fascism.
Matt Taibbi said in an interview that he thought that there was probably some collusion and some loose communication between government agencies and big tech companies but the Twitter files blew his mind. He said it has been a deep ongoing partnership between the government and big tech. he said it goes so much deeper and on a extremely formal level beyond anything people thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13421]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8897
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Re: But, here is the legal question.
Feb 19, 2023, 4:44 PM
[ in reply to But, here is the legal question. ] |
|
If he/she stipulates to a contract that governs conduct then yes, he/she has forfeited certain rights by choosing to sign such an agreement. No one made them do it and they gave up certain liberties in return for the compensation.
Another example would be signing a non-disclosure agreement that prohibits you from speaking freely about certain knowledge you have about the company, its products, customers, etc. You agree to be bound from disclosing information in these situations and give up that liberty, usually as part of a separation package or employment contract.
Message was edited by: slwcu79®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39624
Joined: 11/12/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [346]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 310
Joined: 10/16/16
|
Re: True. But America was always agree to disagree.
1
Feb 11, 2023, 7:41 AM
|
|
“Hate speech” is whatever the Left Wing brain dead Neanderthals say it is. Total junk thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [616]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 924
Joined: 11/18/01
|
Organizations have always had rules about what members are not allowed to say
1
Feb 10, 2023, 7:16 PM
[ in reply to True. But America was always agree to disagree. ] |
|
20 years ago I could not talk about new products we were working on, discuss pricing with competitors, continue to ask a co-worker out if she had said no, speak for my company on a sensitive topic unless I was sanctioned to do so, and on and on and on.
Speech has always been governed by rules. I'm not seeing much that's new here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16186]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8524
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: True. But America was always agree to disagree.
Feb 10, 2023, 8:00 PM
[ in reply to True. But America was always agree to disagree. ] |
|
I'll call BS on the historic freedom of employees to say whatever they wanted even if what they said disagreed with the employer.
If you worked for the electric company 45 years ago and you thought gas was a better way to heat your house, you could find yourself kicking cans down the road hoping to get hired by the gas company. Certainly you could not say anything that posed a threat to the business of the electric company with impunity.
Most business operated that way all the time back when you had a job only as long as the company 'liked' you. YOU ARE FIRED did not require much in the way of an explanation.
Others have explained the 'right of free speech' fairly clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [346]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 310
Joined: 10/16/16
|
Re: True. But America was always agree to disagree.
Feb 11, 2023, 8:09 AM
|
|
But we’re talking about being fired or fined for normal political speech by anti-America Left Wing woke kowtower company CEOs of which Disney is the current poster child. Frankly, I’d like to see anyone who engages in wokeness or wrongly accuses someone of racism imprisoned for at least five years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1654]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 3508
Joined: 11/18/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27840]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5792
Joined: 10/1/15
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
Feb 10, 2023, 5:59 PM
|
|
Policy violation. That would be my guess. Probably written into their contract that they may be fined for policy violations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 3740
Joined: 9/5/20
|
But of course they can be and are
1
Feb 10, 2023, 6:08 PM
|
|
Racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-somatic, basically anything they want as long as the people they’re criticizing identify as conservative or Republican. Just don’t dare called them out on their hypocrisy, especially when it comes to sitting on their hands about human rights in China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
4
Feb 10, 2023, 6:15 PM
|
|
He was fined (salary docked, in essence) by the NBA for violating the terms of his contract and/or the collective-bargaining agreement covering all players. There was no 1st Amendment issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22215]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7083
Joined: 8/31/03
|
That is a legal question....
1
Feb 10, 2023, 6:43 PM
|
|
.... that is continually being litigated in court.
That is why the most important authority given to POTUA is the authority to nominate federal judges and SCOTUS judges.
The courts ultimately what speech is protected by the Constitution and what speech isn't.
Everyone else, in the end, just has an opinion.
We now live in a nation that believes any speech that is "politically incorrect" is not protected by the first amendment. And, many of the judges and justices believe that as well. Some do, some don't. That's why nominating judges is so important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8520]
TigerPulse: 49%
Posts: 11484
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
1
Feb 10, 2023, 7:06 PM
|
|
Beauty or ugly is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8440]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5240
Joined: 9/7/09
|
A. Wrong board moron. B. They have a CBA with the player’s
1
Feb 10, 2023, 7:37 PM
|
|
Union. Their collective bargaining agreement governs player discipline; so, if you agree to be held to an expectation the league has every right to enforce punishment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4492]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 2888
Joined: 11/19/21
|
Free aint free.
3
Feb 10, 2023, 8:08 PM
|
|
It's simple. The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So that's what restricts the fed from limiting free speech.
The 14th Amendment says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So that's what keeps states (and by extension local govts) from limiting free speech.
Neither amendments say a dern thing about limiting corporations or even private citizens from telling you what you cant say..
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6351
Joined: 9/21/04
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
1
Feb 10, 2023, 8:17 PM
|
|
First amendment only applies to preventing government suppression of Dissenting opinions by the press or private citizens.
Punishment regarding racial slurs or other forms of hate speech is censure. It's completely unrelated to the constitution
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [37686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9311
Joined: 6/13/19
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
1
Feb 11, 2023, 7:44 AM
|
|
And yes... calling someone a coot is absolutely meant to be disparaging.
Go Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7374
Joined: 4/9/11
|
Let me preface this by saying: Wrong board
Feb 11, 2023, 7:47 AM
|
|
I couldn't resist!
Seriously, a company can probably restrict what it's employees say. But you do ask a good question - it is a slippery slope. The pendulum seems to have swung so far and creates protected groups that no one is allowed to criticize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1893]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2673
Joined: 7/22/99
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
Feb 19, 2023, 3:18 PM
|
|
It was probably a violation of NBA policy. You can join an organization that limits your speech. Ask anyone in the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10343]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12798
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: First Amendment/legal question. Let me preface this
Feb 19, 2023, 4:57 PM
|
|
NBA is not public. They have the right as a league to deem what is acceptable and not. It is their right just like it is my right not to watch the garbage they call sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
NBA players agree to play for millions of $/yr.
Feb 20, 2023, 11:26 AM
|
|
Everyone has the right to say their boss sucks. It will get you fired but you can say it. That player can refuse to pay the fine and has the legal right to tell the league to shove it up...
In this case the contract limit what a player can do or say. It won't go to court. It's just something to draw attention to a dying league which needs press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 27
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
