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.
and I think I added it as well, the hire itself is not wrong. Provided he isn't preaching his beliefs to the players he is counseling it isn't an issue. The timing of this particular hire, given his strong public views on this topic, is strange for such a conservative (not right wing conservative) organization.
with all this backlash. I think this is a bad hire but even the Giants make mistakes. Remember Sintim?
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
I know we just debated this topic on BBI a few weeks ago. I am not advocating any sort of legal acton, right? None. What I want is for people, like Graziano, to stand down and accept that expressing political opinions they dislike doesn't prohibit people from being employed at whatever job for which they are qualified.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
If you worked for Coca-Cola and then went on Letterman and said how much you loved Pepsi, there's a good chance you'd be fired by Coca-Cola.
Them firing you, in no way, violated your right to say you loved Pepsi on national television.
However, if the Governor of New York stopped you from saying it at all because he only allows Coca-Cola to be mentioned on television shows filmed in NYC, then your free speech rights have been violated.
with all this backlash. I think this is a bad hire but even the Giants make mistakes. Remember Sintim?
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
it's one thing if it stays as chatter on BBI, quite another if a lot of fans start writing letters to the team, as I think many will. where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
personally, and this is despite the fact that a close family member of mine is a gay man, the Giants organization has given much worse people much bigger opportunities than this. i think Tyree will probably keep his views to himself when it comes to this issue. if he can do that and it's not a constant distraction once the initial story dies down, i wouldn't get all up in arms about it.
but yeah, if he's tweeting about gay marriage next week, then we have a problem.
I know we just debated this topic on BBI a few weeks ago. I am not advocating any sort of legal acton, right? None. What I want is for people, like Graziano, to stand down and accept that expressing political opinions they dislike doesn't prohibit people from being employed at whatever job for which they are qualified.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
So, in other words, you want to suppress Graziano's right of free speech because you don't agree with him that Tyree's viewpoint is grounds for questioning of the Giants' decision to hire him?
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
He never suggests that Tyree should be fired.
Here's the worst of what he wrote:
Quote:
Tyree might well be qualified to hold the job of director of player development. Heck, he might be great at it. And maybe his medieval views on this issue won't affect his ability to do the job or relate to players in any way. But given what's going on in the NFL and the world right now, I have to think the Giants could have made a less tone-deaf hire.
feel like he should be given a chance to do the job and succeed or fail on the merits of the work that he does.
Normally I would agree, but problem there is that I believe that Tyree's previous statements made before the hire will absolutely effect his ability to create meaningful relationships with some young players as a mentor.
In that regard, I think that you have to seriously question his ability to serve in the role he was hired in.
The Giants will have an openly gay player on their roster in the near future, you can count on that. Hell, if 3% of the population identifies as gay, then about 50 NFL players are homosexual, so odds are that there's a closeted gay player or two on the team RIGHT NOW. How do you think Tyree's comments make them feel? Also take into account that he a large part of his job description is serving as a mentor. What kind of mentor do you think he would be if Michael Sam was on the team? Wouldn't Michael Sam be one of the guys in most need of a sympathetic figure with Tyree's job?
I meant to, and my question still stands with spirit included.
There is free speech.
And nowhere has it been violated.
I have no idea what you'll read into this, but just to clarify, I think Tyree had a right to say what he did and the Giants had a right to not hire him and have the right to fire him. Interesting to see how this post is interpreted.
he really has to be given a chance to do his job. Given his past, he does have some qualifications that merit the job. It is now up to him not to allow his personal beliefs to hinder his ability to speak with and counsel players. For many people, that is possible. If he is not one of those people, though, then it is grounds to fire him.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
M in CT: "...you want to suppress Graziano's right of free speech because you don't agree with him..." More that I want him to suppress himself and take that option off the table.
Cam: You're right that Graziano didn't state that Tyree should be fired, but I thought it was coming close. Graziano writes: "People like Tyree stand in the way of that, which is why I don't think this is the right time for Tyree to hold a job like this in the NFL." That's very close to calling for a firing.
I think Tyree had a right to say what he did and the Giants had a right to not hire him and have the right to fire him. Interesting to see how this post is interpreted.
If you somehow got the impression I didn't, I'm not sure where the miscommunication is.
he really has to be given a chance to do his job. Given his past, he does have some qualifications that merit the job. It is now up to him not to allow his personal beliefs to hinder his ability to speak with and counsel players. For many people, that is possible. If he is not one of those people, though, then it is grounds to fire him.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
But I think you can make the argument that once he made those statements in a public forum before he was hired it hindered his ability to counsel people.
I'll forgive his obtuseness about human sexuality... Â
most people that throw that phrase around have absolutely no f-cking idea what it means, to be sure, and I'm not sure it really applies here, but the notion that every time someone voices an unpopular opinion in public it becomes the basis for hiring and firing decisions should be a little disquieting, with or without state action. The attempt to publicly shame someone into silence just because "all thinking people" have united on an issue (and again, I happen to agree with that consensus and to the extent anyone gives a f-ck what I think I have argued for it) is a problem. We rightly shudder when people are targeted for voicing opinions that in particular times and places are unpopular (pro Civil Rights of course, pro Gay Rights), maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call for the heads of those with whom we disagree?
Agree 100% with that post. I am sure the Giants think Tyree is a good fit for this job so what should they do? Should Tyree can never have another job?
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
OK, so we have a litmus test for Tyree's new job? Â
there's a pretty good chance Tyree and his apparent evangelism would have an easier time relating to young athletes, many of whom speak the language even if they don't always behave like it, than a lot of us could. And that's not just young African American athletes, that's your Texans and your Southerners too.
As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
Exactly. He's gone on record passing judgement on a subsection of our society. Even if you're not gay, you can still be offended by that and not want to take advice from someone that you view as a homophobe. That's what I mean when I say it may hinder his ability to form relationships with some of the players.
RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
All Tyree should be required to do is to act professional and keep his opinions to himself in the workplace. The player should also approach the interaction like a professional
If I read his comments and I were in charge if hiring, I wouldn't hire him. Heck, I know for a fact that I would not hire some of the people I read on my fb who make profoundly liberal political posts if their resume came across my desk. Also got a thing about tattoos and piercings... there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into hiring I guess.
All Tyree should be required to do is to act professional and keep his opinions to himself in the workplace. The player should also approach the interaction like a professional
Personally I think that's on the Giants. You don't hire someone to impart wisdom and counselling on your young players that you know have been outspoken and bias against a segment of humanity that may (or in the future) make up your team.
Even if you act professional and courteous around someone, it doesn't mean that it isn't awkward. Also, the hiring could represent at the very least a indifference to what Tyree said, or at worst a tacit agreement with his point of view.
most people that throw that phrase around have absolutely no f-cking idea what it means, to be sure, and I'm not sure it really applies here, but the notion that every time someone voices an unpopular opinion in public it becomes the basis for hiring and firing decisions should be a little disquieting, with or without state action. The attempt to publicly shame someone into silence just because "all thinking people" have united on an issue (and again, I happen to agree with that consensus and to the extent anyone gives a f-ck what I think I have argued for it) is a problem. We rightly shudder when people are targeted for voicing opinions that in particular times and places are unpopular (pro Civil Rights of course, pro Gay Rights), maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call for the heads of those with whom we disagree?
Dunded, thanks. This is what I meant by the spirit of free speech beyond what is codified by law. Though there would be no prosecution of a company for firing someone based on something they said, because no law had been broken, depending on what was said, we could lament the fact that the principle of freedom of speech (not the law) was not considered in such decisions. One can always bring up examples of speech that no one would wish protected, but we would also hope that the spirit would not be too carelessly tossed aside.
RE: RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
most people that throw that phrase around have absolutely no f-cking idea what it means, to be sure, and I'm not sure it really applies here, but the notion that every time someone voices an unpopular opinion in public it becomes the basis for hiring and firing decisions should be a little disquieting, with or without state action. The attempt to publicly shame someone into silence just because "all thinking people" have united on an issue (and again, I happen to agree with that consensus and to the extent anyone gives a f-ck what I think I have argued for it) is a problem. We rightly shudder when people are targeted for voicing opinions that in particular times and places are unpopular (pro Civil Rights of course, pro Gay Rights), maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call for the heads of those with whom we disagree?
Agreed. Chilling free speech by relying on the state actor element is fundamentally flawed and our Courts have long held that it could run end around this in the past. You can't have it both ways.
RE: RE: RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
Oh sure, anachronistic is a word I used and not necessarily an appropriate one either in that it suggests there was once an appropriate time to speak as he did and of course that isn't the case. But even so, the fact that younger people generally are much more accepting does not mean that the same can be said of the younger group of NFL players, the majority of whom didn't grow up in the suburban Northeast as I did and many on this board did.
if Tyree said, "Homosexual activity is sinful", a homophobe?
if a Muslim says "Homosexual activity is sinful and under Sharia law a crime", a homophobe?
if the Dalai Lama says (as he has) that homosexual activity is sexual misconduct, a homophobe?
Where do we draw the line in someone enjoying gainful employment?
I am not saying he's unemployable. I'm sure he'd be great at any number of jobs. But he's been outspoken about condemning a subsection of the population to multiple media outlets.
The issue isn't that he has an opinion on someone's lifestyle, it's the fact that he's gotten up on a soapbox and sang it from the rafters and what that represents to the organization that's doing the hiring.
Quote:
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.
This.
Incidentally, is the position Charles Way filled?
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
Them firing you, in no way, violated your right to say you loved Pepsi on national television.
However, if the Governor of New York stopped you from saying it at all because he only allows Coca-Cola to be mentioned on television shows filmed in NYC, then your free speech rights have been violated.
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
it's one thing if it stays as chatter on BBI, quite another if a lot of fans start writing letters to the team, as I think many will. where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
personally, and this is despite the fact that a close family member of mine is a gay man, the Giants organization has given much worse people much bigger opportunities than this. i think Tyree will probably keep his views to himself when it comes to this issue. if he can do that and it's not a constant distraction once the initial story dies down, i wouldn't get all up in arms about it.
but yeah, if he's tweeting about gay marriage next week, then we have a problem.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
So, in other words, you want to suppress Graziano's right of free speech because you don't agree with him that Tyree's viewpoint is grounds for questioning of the Giants' decision to hire him?
He never suggests that Tyree should be fired.
Here's the worst of what he wrote:
It's all fun and games until the gnome is on the throne, man.
When the gnome is on the throne, that's when you know shit just got real.
A fate worse then death. My sympathies.
Normally I would agree, but problem there is that I believe that Tyree's previous statements made before the hire will absolutely effect his ability to create meaningful relationships with some young players as a mentor.
In that regard, I think that you have to seriously question his ability to serve in the role he was hired in.
Wow.
Nice! :)
I meant to, and my question still stands with spirit included.
There is free speech.
And nowhere has it been violated.
I have no idea what you'll read into this, but just to clarify, I think Tyree had a right to say what he did and the Giants had a right to not hire him and have the right to fire him. Interesting to see how this post is interpreted.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
Cam: You're right that Graziano didn't state that Tyree should be fired, but I thought it was coming close. Graziano writes: "People like Tyree stand in the way of that, which is why I don't think this is the right time for Tyree to hold a job like this in the NFL." That's very close to calling for a firing.
If you somehow got the impression I didn't, I'm not sure where the miscommunication is.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
But I think you can make the argument that once he made those statements in a public forum before he was hired it hindered his ability to counsel people.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
Additionally, he was explicit about thinking this (point of view) means more to him than even winning a Super Bowl.
So, according to Tyree, yes, he's hindered.
Thus he's all and all a really weird choice for the guy you want to teach rookies about NFL priorities.
Quote:
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
Exactly. He's gone on record passing judgement on a subsection of our society. Even if you're not gay, you can still be offended by that and not want to take advice from someone that you view as a homophobe. That's what I mean when I say it may hinder his ability to form relationships with some of the players.
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
Personally I think that's on the Giants. You don't hire someone to impart wisdom and counselling on your young players that you know have been outspoken and bias against a segment of humanity that may (or in the future) make up your team.
Even if you act professional and courteous around someone, it doesn't mean that it isn't awkward. Also, the hiring could represent at the very least a indifference to what Tyree said, or at worst a tacit agreement with his point of view.
Double-entendre alert!
if a Muslim says "Homosexual activity is sinful and under Sharia law a crime", a homophobe?
if the Dalai Lama says (as he has) that homosexual activity is sexual misconduct, a homophobe?
Where do we draw the line in someone enjoying gainful employment?
Dunded, thanks. This is what I meant by the spirit of free speech beyond what is codified by law. Though there would be no prosecution of a company for firing someone based on something they said, because no law had been broken, depending on what was said, we could lament the fact that the principle of freedom of speech (not the law) was not considered in such decisions. One can always bring up examples of speech that no one would wish protected, but we would also hope that the spirit would not be too carelessly tossed aside.
Quote:
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
How about...wherever the private employer in question decides that the line should be drawn, so long as it doesn't violate the law?
Agreed. Chilling free speech by relying on the state actor element is fundamentally flawed and our Courts have long held that it could run end around this in the past. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
In comment 11778674 vibe4giants said:
Quote:
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
Oh sure, anachronistic is a word I used and not necessarily an appropriate one either in that it suggests there was once an appropriate time to speak as he did and of course that isn't the case. But even so, the fact that younger people generally are much more accepting does not mean that the same can be said of the younger group of NFL players, the majority of whom didn't grow up in the suburban Northeast as I did and many on this board did.
if a Muslim says "Homosexual activity is sinful and under Sharia law a crime", a homophobe?
if the Dalai Lama says (as he has) that homosexual activity is sexual misconduct, a homophobe?
Where do we draw the line in someone enjoying gainful employment?
I am not saying he's unemployable. I'm sure he'd be great at any number of jobs. But he's been outspoken about condemning a subsection of the population to multiple media outlets.
The issue isn't that he has an opinion on someone's lifestyle, it's the fact that he's gotten up on a soapbox and sang it from the rafters and what that represents to the organization that's doing the hiring.