how is that germane to his job? I suppose if a player comes in questioning his sexuality and wants advice it might be an issue but that would be a rare event. In fact, it's likely that the Giants having an openly gay player for him to make uncomfortable would be a rare event for his tenure. I suppose Sam could open a floodgate, but I think that's unlikely.
RE: RE: RE: RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
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.
So he's a good hire based on…regional stereotypes? That seems kinda anachronistic thinking its own self.
As I said, given his expressed views and priorities, Tyree seems like a strange choice. (Frankly, for him, as well.) But I fully expect the Giants PR team will issue a clarifying statement any time now. We'll see.
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
I actually see both sides of this point marriage is basically viewed as a contract between two people nowadays which is also the reason imo that the divorce rate has skyrocketed over the last several decades. Now its mainly the people who believe in the religious sanctimony who have a problem with it whether they have a problem with gay people or not.
Personally I don't give a rats ass what people believe just as long they don't force their opinions on anyone. My step brother is gay we were 15 when our parents married and we knew then he was gay. We became close right away and I love him like he was my real brother. We had this same discussion yesterday about tyree. He said although he shouldn't come out preaching about it the way he did he understands the opinion and doesn't havea problem with it. The thing he does have a problem with its when people tell him what he can and can't do because of his sexuality
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.
Its not hard to understand freedom of speech pretexts you to day what you want but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you said.
If your in a high profile job and say you hate Jews or call black people the n word on let's say twitter freedom of speech allows you to say that but it doesn't stop your company from firing you for saying that because it makes them look bad for having you work for them
else, would be a disqualification for employment because not based on any biblical statement, which I assume is the basis for Tyree's beliefs and statements.
There is NO basis in the Bible for ANY anti-semitic or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim statements.
If someone doesn't believe in the Bible or that the Bible does not enjoin homosexual acts or that it's an incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is sinful, I'm OK with that belief. But, I can also understand if Tyree believes that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. I also have no problem if he publicly professes his belief either as the free exercise of religion or of speech.
Since this was a response to me, I have two broad points:
1. Using Biblical verse to validate harm against others has never been convincing to me.
2. To argue that the New Testament has not been used as a resource to foment anti-antisemitism (even if one doesn't look at problematic actual text in Gospels of Mark, Matthew, John and the Book of Revelations) is quite problematic. For the broader view, I recommend James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews – A History.
Wasting your typed words. Nobody is changing anybodies minds.
generally i agree with this. intelligent people who know the law and who have made up their minds about how the law should be interpreted probably won't be swayed by what they read here, but at least they have a shot at understanding the principles in play. that may or may not lead to an evolution in their thinking, but the key is that they are thinking.
the people who shout "freedom of speech" in these scenarios are utterly hopeless, however. so in that regard, no, their feeble minds cannot be changed. in order to understand and ultimately, to change their opinion, they have to be able to grasp the concepts first.
M in CT: So, I guess you're saying (I'm not trying to put words Â
But his employer might fire him or not hire him because of what he says. But he did get hired, so I don't see what all the hubbub is for. It's not as if he got fired and people are saying "Freedom of speech!". The guy is free to say whatever he wants, and his employer took what he said into consideration and still hired him. Nothing to see here.
But his employer might fire him or not hire him because of what he says. But he did get hired, so I don't see what all the hubbub is for. It's not as if he got fired and people are saying "Freedom of speech!". The guy is free to say whatever he wants, and his employer took what he said into consideration and still hired him. Nothing to see here.
nobody disputes that the Giants actually did hire Tyree, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
the focus of the debate has largely been whether the Giants or other private organizations are free to consider an employee's (or potential employee's) viewpoints as part of the hiring, discipline or termination process. so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
but yeah, i think we can all agree that the Giants did in fact hire David Tyree, but thanks anyway for reminding us.
so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
I think people are discussing their views on the principles involved, not "Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened"
Duned- you're arguing something nobody has suggested . Â
And to address your point about players not being a representation of social norms as a whole: obviously that's the case, otherwise there would have been an openly gay player before 2014. What's also obvious is that although not perhaps "up to speed" with the rest of the country, players views absolutely are changing. Specifically an entire team of young men in Columbia, MO kept the fact that one of their star players is homosexual a secret for a year because the gay player asked them to. If that's not a sign of the younger generation of players having a different attitude towards homosexuality, I'm not quite sure what is.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
Ha, if you restricted BBI threads to discussion of things that have actually occurred - as opposed to things that might occur or haven't yet occurred - you'd probably eliminate 80% of the threads. I'm sure you've never sunken low enough to engage in a debate regarding the hypothetical.
Freedom of speech has little or nothing to do with this specific case. No matter which side of the argument you are on.
The argument may have delved deeper into hypotheticals, but I still find it weird/stupid that freedom of speech is the theme of this discussion when it never really had anything to do with this scenario.
you read through the thread, you'll find that quite a few posters, myself included, have been trying to make exactly that point - that freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with this story. so, while we are in agreement on that, you are pretty late to the party.
But as I said, it makes no sense for either side of the argument. It would have made sense to argue tooth and nail if Tyree got fired for this and people were chanting "Freedom of speech!", but he got hired. It's just a circular argument about something that has never happened.
The fact that I'm late to the party and freedom of speech is still the hot topic on this very page speaks volumes on how stupid this is.
that anyone argues that freedom of speech as codified in the constitution is an issue here even though so much effort has been expended refuting that argument that few are making. Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Wuphat you're like a bulldog. I NEVER said that its being violated. You seem to be lying in wait ready to pounce on me for any perceived slight. I talked in generalities that the principle of free speech should be given consideration whenever possible. I never directly applied it to the Tyree issue. Some poster thought freedom of speech was important and I followed up with the idea that even when the law did not apply, we should still consider the principle where appropriate. You keep trying to put me on one side of this issue when I haven't taken a stand on it other than to say Tryree was free to say what he did and the Giants were free to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know why you have a hard on for me but its getting a bit creepy!
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
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.
I was agreeing with you and went on to remark that the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals. You chose to apply that to the Tyree situation, not I, nor did I intend to. It was just a general observation about the importance of the principle of free speech. And if you don't get that simple concept and need it further simplified, then I can't help you. No, change that ... I don't wish to help you because you're just baiting me and I continue to foolishly respond.
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
People are boggling themselves by reading into, rather than just reading. The OP's subject makes it pretty clear. The article sparked a discussion here as to whether or not this hire was a 'bad move' by the Giants. No one on the 'bad move' side has questioned anyone's rights to do anything they've done. As is often the case on here, the Freedom of Speech business is usually introduced by people who simply don't understand it. Which is usually served with a side of 'PC!!!' or 'Pussification!!!'.
And that's probably where all the 'boggling' comes in. People are just randomly grabbing at words they see in front of them, without being concerned about what anything actually means.
"Freedom of Speech" only applies when there is govt involvement. But there should also be freedom of speech. I think the amendment is founded on a principle that yeah govt shouldn't impinge, but also that people have freedom just by existing, independent of govt. part of that freedom should be, IMO, that your or my opinion are equally able to be expressed. Wrt repercussions, an employer certainly has that right. But more often than not it's not the employer, it's the employer being bullied into an action by mob mentality. That's also scary.
Is based on at people don't like what he said. So I would guess that's where the speech element comes in. I haven't seen anyone say it's a bad move based on his qualifications.
Wrt repercussions, an employer certainly has that right. But more often than not it's not the employer, it's the employer being bullied into an action by mob mentality. That's also scary.
c'mon, companies are not bullied in any such fashion. they're simply responding to public opinion so that they are best positioned to make money, just like they always have.
the only two things that have changed between the "good old days" when you could spout off about "fags" and keep your job and today are 1) public opinion and 2) technology.
so now ridiculing "fags" is no longer an accepted viewpoint in mainstream society and it's easier to disseminate your ignorant shit to more people by using Twitter.
if people are so concerned about being vilified for their views, or losing their jobs, or being called bigots, then they should keep them off Twitter, don't you think?
I wonder where there is a line though even for private employers Â
As I said, if I had seen someone express politically different ideology of mine in public, I likely wouldn't hire them...unless there was a huge difference in qualifications versus other candidates. I also would factor in other personal things (that we're not religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc). Smoking, smoking weed, tattoos, piercings etc. somewhere there must be. Line?
So you're right. I think mostly we suck though wrt contrary opinions..not necessarily homophobic speech.., we are very much a "Lottery" society I think.
the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
Wup, first let me apologize for the tone of my last few posts to you, that is letting my frustration get the best of me. I am frustrated with words being put in my mouth, with positions ascribed to me that I have not take, and with posts agreeing with posters being ignored by those posters. That's no reason to abandon civility.
The idea of a tradition of respect for freedom of speech is so utterly basic and self evident as to defy efforts to boil it down even further. The best I can do is leave you with an example...
Suppose in an interview with a school newspaper, a teacher said " I think our educational system is deeply flawed. Our methods are all wrong and there is too much emphasis on testing. That is compounded by inept administration, particularly at our school". Now, the Board of Education must decide whether the statements were so egregious that her traditional right to freedom of speech should be disregarded and she should be disciplined.
We should consider freedom of speech in deciding these issues regardless of whether the government is involved, and the BoE can very well decide that the damage of her comments outweighs her freedom of speech. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't too lightly dismiss it.
Now, you say what has this got to do with David Tyree? NOTHING! And I never said it did. I made a general comment about our democratic traditions after agreeing with you about the actual codified constitutional right to free speech. You proceeded to cross examine me as if I had come down on the side of "leave Tyree alone, he has the right of free speech" I said no such thing, and in fact stated the opposite, he can say what he likes and the Giants can respond as they like. That's it. I'm out before I again succumb to frustration.
RM, you're confusing public and private employers Â
the public school that employs or would employ the teacher in your example may be limited in its responses to those comments, depending on whether the teacher could demonstrate the elements for a first amendment retaliation claim.
but a private employer, like the NYG, does not have any such restrictions and private employees, like David Tyree, are not eligible for first amendment retaliation claims.
freedom of speech means that the government can't stop you from saying something.
It does not mean you are free from consequences of that speech.
It never has.
Ever.
If a school board (and this is a strange example, since the BOE is technically an arm of the state) decides that a teacher has said something egregious, of course, as that teacher's employer (rather than as an arm of the state) has the right to terminate.
Now, we can certainly nitpick over what ought or ought not be a terminable offense, but I don't think that's what either of us are looking for.
I just didn't (and to be honest, still don't) understand what is meant by the spirit or principle of free speech you've talked about means.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean you have the right to an audience, a right to a platform on which to speak, or the right to be free of consequences for what you say.
And, so I'm clear, I perfectly understand your position on this Â
You proceeded to cross examine me as if I had come down on the side of "leave Tyree alone, he has the right of free speech" I said no such thing, and in fact stated the opposite, he can say what he likes and the Giants can respond as they like. That's it. I'm out before I again succumb to frustration.
It's the whole spirit/principle of free speech apart from the law or government that you're proposing that I don't see.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean you have the right to an audience, a right to a platform on which to speak, or the right to be free of consequences for what you say.
We have no real disagreement here other than you diligently looking for something to disagree with
Even though it's not the intended reason, by hiring a person of authority for players who is outspoken in his stance against gay marriage, there are players who could easily view the Giants as an anti-gay organization. Basically guilty by association. You might say that it ridiculous and certainly not the intention. You might point out the team's statement that Tyree does not speak for the team on this issue. But there are players who have every right to see differently, and now would refuse to ever play for the franchise. This could hurt us at some point, even though we'll never know it happened.
Even though it's not the intended reason, by hiring a person of authority for players who is outspoken in his stance against gay marriage, there are players who could easily view the Giants as an anti-gay organization. Basically guilty by association. You might say that it ridiculous and certainly not the intention. You might point out the team's statement that Tyree does not speak for the team on this issue. But there are players who have every right to see differently, and now would refuse to ever play for the franchise. This could hurt us at some point, even though we'll never know it happened.
Agree. I stated earlier on this thread I thought it was a dumb move on their part
Great, we seem to be in agreement on all aspects except for Â
Gay people have been waiting for their freedom to simply be who they are, in public, for a long, long, long time now. Without getting the crap kicked out of them. In other words, the basic freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness without hearing how they're disgusting or the Devil's abominations or they're making somebody unforgettable with their (gasp!) kissing.
I give zero shits about the non-existent, on any level, impingement of David Tyree's right to say whatever ignorant thing pops into his head. As if that's the real travesty here and this guy with his thin resume getting a cushy job is the one who has really been victimized here.
But his employer knows his views and still hired him. So what is the problem here exactly? Why is freedom of speech even being brought up here?
'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.
So he's a good hire based on…regional stereotypes? That seems kinda anachronistic thinking its own self.
As I said, given his expressed views and priorities, Tyree seems like a strange choice. (Frankly, for him, as well.) But I fully expect the Giants PR team will issue a clarifying statement any time now. We'll see.
But his employer knows his views and still hired him. So what is the problem here exactly? Why is freedom of speech even being brought up here?
Right. Actually the debate is more freedom to hire who you want.
Quote:
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
I actually see both sides of this point marriage is basically viewed as a contract between two people nowadays which is also the reason imo that the divorce rate has skyrocketed over the last several decades. Now its mainly the people who believe in the religious sanctimony who have a problem with it whether they have a problem with gay people or not.
Personally I don't give a rats ass what people believe just as long they don't force their opinions on anyone. My step brother is gay we were 15 when our parents married and we knew then he was gay. We became close right away and I love him like he was my real brother. We had this same discussion yesterday about tyree. He said although he shouldn't come out preaching about it the way he did he understands the opinion and doesn't havea problem with it. The thing he does have a problem with its when people tell him what he can and can't do because of his sexuality
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.
Its not hard to understand freedom of speech pretexts you to day what you want but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you said.
If your in a high profile job and say you hate Jews or call black people the n word on let's say twitter freedom of speech allows you to say that but it doesn't stop your company from firing you for saying that because it makes them look bad for having you work for them
There is NO basis in the Bible for ANY anti-semitic or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim statements.
If someone doesn't believe in the Bible or that the Bible does not enjoin homosexual acts or that it's an incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is sinful, I'm OK with that belief. But, I can also understand if Tyree believes that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. I also have no problem if he publicly professes his belief either as the free exercise of religion or of speech.
Since this was a response to me, I have two broad points:
1. Using Biblical verse to validate harm against others has never been convincing to me.
2. To argue that the New Testament has not been used as a resource to foment anti-antisemitism (even if one doesn't look at problematic actual text in Gospels of Mark, Matthew, John and the Book of Revelations) is quite problematic. For the broader view, I recommend James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews – A History.
generally i agree with this. intelligent people who know the law and who have made up their minds about how the law should be interpreted probably won't be swayed by what they read here, but at least they have a shot at understanding the principles in play. that may or may not lead to an evolution in their thinking, but the key is that they are thinking.
the people who shout "freedom of speech" in these scenarios are utterly hopeless, however. so in that regard, no, their feeble minds cannot be changed. in order to understand and ultimately, to change their opinion, they have to be able to grasp the concepts first.
nobody disputes that the Giants actually did hire Tyree, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
the focus of the debate has largely been whether the Giants or other private organizations are free to consider an employee's (or potential employee's) viewpoints as part of the hiring, discipline or termination process. so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
but yeah, i think we can all agree that the Giants did in fact hire David Tyree, but thanks anyway for reminding us.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
Quote:
so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
I think people are discussing their views on the principles involved, not "Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened"
Nobody is saying the Giants should fire him.
And to address your point about players not being a representation of social norms as a whole: obviously that's the case, otherwise there would have been an openly gay player before 2014. What's also obvious is that although not perhaps "up to speed" with the rest of the country, players views absolutely are changing. Specifically an entire team of young men in Columbia, MO kept the fact that one of their star players is homosexual a secret for a year because the gay player asked them to. If that's not a sign of the younger generation of players having a different attitude towards homosexuality, I'm not quite sure what is.
Ha, if you restricted BBI threads to discussion of things that have actually occurred - as opposed to things that might occur or haven't yet occurred - you'd probably eliminate 80% of the threads. I'm sure you've never sunken low enough to engage in a debate regarding the hypothetical.
The argument may have delved deeper into hypotheticals, but I still find it weird/stupid that freedom of speech is the theme of this discussion when it never really had anything to do with this scenario.
But as I said, it makes no sense for either side of the argument. It would have made sense to argue tooth and nail if Tyree got fired for this and people were chanting "Freedom of speech!", but he got hired. It's just a circular argument about something that has never happened.
The fact that I'm late to the party and freedom of speech is still the hot topic on this very page speaks volumes on how stupid this is.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Quote:
Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Wuphat you're like a bulldog. I NEVER said that its being violated. You seem to be lying in wait ready to pounce on me for any perceived slight. I talked in generalities that the principle of free speech should be given consideration whenever possible. I never directly applied it to the Tyree issue. Some poster thought freedom of speech was important and I followed up with the idea that even when the law did not apply, we should still consider the principle where appropriate. You keep trying to put me on one side of this issue when I haven't taken a stand on it other than to say Tryree was free to say what he did and the Giants were free to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know why you have a hard on for me but its getting a bit creepy!
You keep bringing it up, but I have no idea what you mean by it.
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.
I was agreeing with you and went on to remark that the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals. You chose to apply that to the Tyree situation, not I, nor did I intend to. It was just a general observation about the importance of the principle of free speech. And if you don't get that simple concept and need it further simplified, then I can't help you. No, change that ... I don't wish to help you because you're just baiting me and I continue to foolishly respond.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
Not that anyone has done that here to Tyree
Quote:
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
Quote:
In comment 11778969 Matt M. said:
Quote:
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
People are boggling themselves by reading into, rather than just reading. The OP's subject makes it pretty clear. The article sparked a discussion here as to whether or not this hire was a 'bad move' by the Giants. No one on the 'bad move' side has questioned anyone's rights to do anything they've done. As is often the case on here, the Freedom of Speech business is usually introduced by people who simply don't understand it. Which is usually served with a side of 'PC!!!' or 'Pussification!!!'.
And that's probably where all the 'boggling' comes in. People are just randomly grabbing at words they see in front of them, without being concerned about what anything actually means.
In that case, I'm voting for someone else in the next election.
Doesn't seem like that's promoting this lower case freedom of speech you're alluding to.
c'mon, companies are not bullied in any such fashion. they're simply responding to public opinion so that they are best positioned to make money, just like they always have.
the only two things that have changed between the "good old days" when you could spout off about "fags" and keep your job and today are 1) public opinion and 2) technology.
so now ridiculing "fags" is no longer an accepted viewpoint in mainstream society and it's easier to disseminate your ignorant shit to more people by using Twitter.
if people are so concerned about being vilified for their views, or losing their jobs, or being called bigots, then they should keep them off Twitter, don't you think?
Quote:
the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
Wup, first let me apologize for the tone of my last few posts to you, that is letting my frustration get the best of me. I am frustrated with words being put in my mouth, with positions ascribed to me that I have not take, and with posts agreeing with posters being ignored by those posters. That's no reason to abandon civility.
The idea of a tradition of respect for freedom of speech is so utterly basic and self evident as to defy efforts to boil it down even further. The best I can do is leave you with an example...
Suppose in an interview with a school newspaper, a teacher said " I think our educational system is deeply flawed. Our methods are all wrong and there is too much emphasis on testing. That is compounded by inept administration, particularly at our school". Now, the Board of Education must decide whether the statements were so egregious that her traditional right to freedom of speech should be disregarded and she should be disciplined.
We should consider freedom of speech in deciding these issues regardless of whether the government is involved, and the BoE can very well decide that the damage of her comments outweighs her freedom of speech. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't too lightly dismiss it.
Now, you say what has this got to do with David Tyree? NOTHING! And I never said it did. I made a general comment about our democratic traditions after agreeing with you about the actual codified constitutional right to free speech. You proceeded to cross examine me as if I had come down on the side of "leave Tyree alone, he has the right of free speech" I said no such thing, and in fact stated the opposite, he can say what he likes and the Giants can respond as they like. That's it. I'm out before I again succumb to frustration.
but a private employer, like the NYG, does not have any such restrictions and private employees, like David Tyree, are not eligible for first amendment retaliation claims.
but you probably knew that already, huh?
It does not mean you are free from consequences of that speech.
It never has.
Ever.
If a school board (and this is a strange example, since the BOE is technically an arm of the state) decides that a teacher has said something egregious, of course, as that teacher's employer (rather than as an arm of the state) has the right to terminate.
Now, we can certainly nitpick over what ought or ought not be a terminable offense, but I don't think that's what either of us are looking for.
I just didn't (and to be honest, still don't) understand what is meant by the spirit or principle of free speech you've talked about means.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean you have the right to an audience, a right to a platform on which to speak, or the right to be free of consequences for what you say.
It's the whole spirit/principle of free speech apart from the law or government that you're proposing that I don't see.
We have no real disagreement here other than you diligently looking for something to disagree with
Agree. I stated earlier on this thread I thought it was a dumb move on their part
I still haven't seen what this distinction is
I give zero shits about the non-existent, on any level, impingement of David Tyree's right to say whatever ignorant thing pops into his head. As if that's the real travesty here and this guy with his thin resume getting a cushy job is the one who has really been victimized here.