In seriousness, part of his job is to help young players adjust to being part of the Giants. Do you think a homosexual player would ever feel comfortable confiding in Tyree? The same way you wouldn't want a racist, someone who publically hates on religion or vice versa, etc. No known prejudices please.
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Absolutely. Let's put noted anti-semite Mel Gibson in charge of the Jewish National Fund, too.
The point you're missing is that you keep invoking
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
That isn't the point that has been belabored here. The point of contention is whether or not his stated beliefs will affect how his charges relate or don't relate to him and how much this may affect whether or not they feel that availing themselves of a, perhaps, needed service may be short-circuited by his stated beliefs.
Wuphat: Sorry but invoked freedom of press only in regard
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Its pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about. The premises aren't at all the same, but its pretty clear you won't be able to understand why.
It doesn't matter how or in what context you invoked them.
Unless the government is involved, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form.
Only if your conception of "freedom of speech" is entirely bound in the First Amendment, but that's a different argument entirely and one I don't care to ignite here.
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Wuphat: Tyree's freedom of speech not relevant here?
Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
....it does bother me that someone who holds those particular views now has a prominent role within the organization. I can accept that I don't have to like or agree with any person's views and that maybe that has nothing to do with his ability to the job. But I'm more likely to accept that in the case of player who happens to be bigot or a lunatic. In that case, the job is what you do on the field. Here, the job entails relationships, player development, training etc. So yes, I'm bothered by this hire.
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
RE: Wuphat: Sorry but invoked freedom of press only in regard
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
Wup, never said anything like that. I only pointed out that aside from the actual right of free speech there is an informal spirit of free speech. That spirit applies to both Tyree and his critics. I'm stating to think that some posters decide what "side" you're on and respond to that rather than actually reading the post.
Have provided some excellent thought provoking context.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
this isn't really a large enough role in the organization that i'm going to get bent out of shape about it. this is mostly a ceremonial job for ex-players in my eyes. if Tyree were made a position coach I'd probably be uncomfortable with that.
he's not the guy I would've hired for the job, but it's a privately-owned organization and they can hire whoever they want. good chance the people who hired him know a whole lot more about this job and what type of person is good for it than i do. plus, they can fire him if he says anything they don't like to the media, or via social media, makes the team look bad or even if they decide he's annoying for no reason at all.
and no he doesn't have freedom of speech when it comes to his statements when he's a member of this or any other private organization. he can be disciplined or fired for anything he says that the organization deems wrong or offensive. if that doesn't make sense to you, then go find a copy of the Constitution - they sell them in little booklets in gift shops and shit - and smack yourself in the face with it like ten times.
What I did say that Tyree has the right to say what he did based on his right of free speech, that if his belief that he professed is based on the Bible I can understand it and that Graziano's comments that Tyree's views represent "medieval views" effectively denies Tyree's freedom of speech and of religion because they're "non-mainstream", that once Graziano's article was allowed to be published on BBI its discussion should also be allowed because if Eric allowed freedom of the press he should allow its discussion and that Tyree's words should not disqualify him from his new job on the grounds of freedom of religion and free speech.
And apparent length to which he would go to execute what he views as god's agenda would scare me if I was the Giants. He sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen in a few years once we have a gay player or two on our roster. Bad hire for that reason IMO.
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Holy crap! I never said or implied that anyone was protected from the consequences of their speech. The spirit of freedom of speech goes both ways. I think I must not be typing clearly, so I think I'll take a break and go get some work done.
Have provided some excellent thought provoking context.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
I do too.
My second post on this thread and a post yesterday laid it out.
I think it's odd, but I'm also confident that the Giants discussed this issue with David.
It's also quite possible as other's have mentioned that David's opinion on the matter has changed.
the people who raise "freedom of speech" arguments in the context of private employment don't have a clue what they're talking about.
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
RE: Wuphat: Never said the Government was involved at all.
What I did say that Tyree has the right to say what he did based on his right of free speech, that if his belief that he professed is based on the Bible I can understand it and that Graziano's comments that Tyree's views represent "medieval views" effectively denies Tyree's freedom of speech and of religion because they're "non-mainstream", that once Graziano's article was allowed to be published on BBI its discussion should also be allowed because if Eric allowed freedom of the press he should allow its discussion and that Tyree's words should not disqualify him from his new job on the grounds of freedom of religion and free speech.
Hey Bobby - if i told you that every single work you just wrote is wrong...how would you respond to that?
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
The job duties can be broadly described as "a non-football role where he will have many responsibilities, most of them related to helping players develop skills necessary for personal success and life after football."
Arguably, anyone who had a real career in the NFL and managed to keep their life together after they retired would be a candidate. So we can say that much for Tyree.
I think many people that view this as a questionable hiring
1. Tyree can think, say or believe whatever he wants, but his words, past and present, have consequences;
2. There is no protection against your publicly expressed personal views outside of the workplace impacting your ability to earn a living (wear a swastika arm band on your suit at your next interview and if asked, say "oh that, its personal, next question");
3. Tyree now represents a private organization and brand, whose stakeholders (employees, customers, sponsors) undoubtedly include homosexuals, and friends and family of;
Wuphat: Never said the Government was involved at all.
Then freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are non-issues.
Only the government can deny those rights, and they haven't.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
When you talk about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you are talking about the government suppression of those things.
You and I cannot violate each other's free speech rights. The Giants cannot violate Tyree's free speech rights.
Eric can't violate freedom of press rights.
Only the government can.
And if you're not saying they did, then there's no free speech or free press issues.
Jeez! this shit really gets wild! You conveniently left out the word "spirit". I said there is a spirit of free speech in our democracy. It is separate from what is codified in law and therefore "informal". But you guys just go ahead and see whatever you want regardless of what's actually typed. This silliness is a bit too much for me. Carry on.
I'm legitimately frightened by what I'd find in a search for
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
actually what you're suggesting would be a much more injurious type of intrusion into "free speech," either legally or spiritually. you see, if David Tyree were protected from discipline or termination from his *private* employer - despite having said something (hypothetically, of course) that his employer deems inappropriate or offensive, you are then forcing the employer to endorse the employee's viewpoint by forcing them to keep him on staff. that would be much worse for "free speech" in spirit, wouldn't it? can you imagine someone on the executive board of Chick Fil-A being a staunch supporter of gay marriage? think that might undermine corporate cohesion a little bit?
*private* employers are (and should be) allowed to discipline or fire employees for the things they say, even if those comments are OTHERWISE protected from government action by the Constitution. to suggest otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of "free speech," either in law or in spirit.
If the Giants, as an organization, had said "we don't want to hire a guy because his views on humanity are backwards, out-of-step and reflect poorly on our organization," they would absolutely have had the right to make that determination. And it wouldn't matter if the views of that job candidate were based on the bible or anything else. But at the end of the day, the Giants didn't make that determination. (And that's also their right).
Personally, I wish they had.
I think the word that needs to be introduced here is "chilling"`
I'd voice my opinion. And if that opinion were subsequently deleted, that would also be within Eric's purview.
Again, it's his site, his rules, and he's free to change them, adhere to them or ignore them at his discretion.
If you don't like that, you can always start your own site.
BBI is not the government.
Again, I refer you to the cartoon I posted earlier. Specifically, the first panel of the bottom row.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Absolutely. Let's put noted anti-semite Mel Gibson in charge of the Jewish National Fund, too.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Quote:
Yeah. That happens never.
And if he does, fire him. Problemo solved.
That isn't the point that has been belabored here. The point of contention is whether or not his stated beliefs will affect how his charges relate or don't relate to him and how much this may affect whether or not they feel that availing themselves of a, perhaps, needed service may be short-circuited by his stated beliefs.
Freedom of speech (and religion invoked too)with regard to Tyree's comments.
Quote:
In comment 11778136 Rob in NYC said:
Quote:
In comment 11778125 Sammo284 said:
Quote:
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Its pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about. The premises aren't at all the same, but its pretty clear you won't be able to understand why.
Enlighten me.
Unless the government is involved, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form.
Freedom of speech (and religion invoked too)with regard to Tyree's comments.
And none of those have anything to do with freedom of the press or freedom of speech, except that they are all exercising them.
Unless the government is involved, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form.
Only if your conception of "freedom of speech" is entirely bound in the First Amendment, but that's a different argument entirely and one I don't care to ignite here.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
Freedom of speech (and religion invoked too)with regard to Tyree's comments.
You do know these are from the Bill of Rights which is part of the US Constitution and apply only to the Government, right?
They don't apply to BBI or any non-government entity.
Quote:
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Quote:
Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
Wup, never said anything like that. I only pointed out that aside from the actual right of free speech there is an informal spirit of free speech. That spirit applies to both Tyree and his critics. I'm stating to think that some posters decide what "side" you're on and respond to that rather than actually reading the post.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
he's not the guy I would've hired for the job, but it's a privately-owned organization and they can hire whoever they want. good chance the people who hired him know a whole lot more about this job and what type of person is good for it than i do. plus, they can fire him if he says anything they don't like to the media, or via social media, makes the team look bad or even if they decide he's annoying for no reason at all.
and no he doesn't have freedom of speech when it comes to his statements when he's a member of this or any other private organization. he can be disciplined or fired for anything he says that the organization deems wrong or offensive. if that doesn't make sense to you, then go find a copy of the Constitution - they sell them in little booklets in gift shops and shit - and smack yourself in the face with it like ten times.
a throne.
MFers!
There's freedom of speech.
And it hasn't been violated at all
Quote:
In comment 11778338 Wuphat said:
Quote:
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Holy crap! I never said or implied that anyone was protected from the consequences of their speech. The spirit of freedom of speech goes both ways. I think I must not be typing clearly, so I think I'll take a break and go get some work done.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
I do too.
My second post on this thread and a post yesterday laid it out.
I think it's odd, but I'm also confident that the Giants discussed this issue with David.
It's also quite possible as other's have mentioned that David's opinion on the matter has changed.
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
Hey Bobby - if i told you that every single work you just wrote is wrong...how would you respond to that?
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
The job duties can be broadly described as "a non-football role where he will have many responsibilities, most of them related to helping players develop skills necessary for personal success and life after football."
Arguably, anyone who had a real career in the NFL and managed to keep their life together after they retired would be a candidate. So we can say that much for Tyree.
1. Tyree can think, say or believe whatever he wants, but his words, past and present, have consequences;
2. There is no protection against your publicly expressed personal views outside of the workplace impacting your ability to earn a living (wear a swastika arm band on your suit at your next interview and if asked, say "oh that, its personal, next question");
3. Tyree now represents a private organization and brand, whose stakeholders (employees, customers, sponsors) undoubtedly include homosexuals, and friends and family of;
Sanitary gnomes have toilets.
BTW, don't do a google image search for that with safe search off.
Then freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are non-issues.
Only the government can deny those rights, and they haven't.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
When you talk about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you are talking about the government suppression of those things.
You and I cannot violate each other's free speech rights. The Giants cannot violate Tyree's free speech rights.
Eric can't violate freedom of press rights.
Only the government can.
And if you're not saying they did, then there's no free speech or free press issues.
There's freedom of speech.
And it hasn't been violated at all
Jeez! this shit really gets wild! You conveniently left out the word "spirit". I said there is a spirit of free speech in our democracy. It is separate from what is codified in law and therefore "informal". But you guys just go ahead and see whatever you want regardless of what's actually typed. This silliness is a bit too much for me. Carry on.
Wow.
I meant to, and my question still stands with spirit included.
There is free speech.
And nowhere has it been violated.
actually what you're suggesting would be a much more injurious type of intrusion into "free speech," either legally or spiritually. you see, if David Tyree were protected from discipline or termination from his *private* employer - despite having said something (hypothetically, of course) that his employer deems inappropriate or offensive, you are then forcing the employer to endorse the employee's viewpoint by forcing them to keep him on staff. that would be much worse for "free speech" in spirit, wouldn't it? can you imagine someone on the executive board of Chick Fil-A being a staunch supporter of gay marriage? think that might undermine corporate cohesion a little bit?
*private* employers are (and should be) allowed to discipline or fire employees for the things they say, even if those comments are OTHERWISE protected from government action by the Constitution. to suggest otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of "free speech," either in law or in spirit.
If the Giants, as an organization, had said "we don't want to hire a guy because his views on humanity are backwards, out-of-step and reflect poorly on our organization," they would absolutely have had the right to make that determination. And it wouldn't matter if the views of that job candidate were based on the bible or anything else. But at the end of the day, the Giants didn't make that determination. (And that's also their right).
Personally, I wish they had.