Started By
Message
re: Clay Travis article on Michael Sam, Sterling, etc.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:57 pm to Camp Randall
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:57 pm to Camp Randall
I made the mistake of voicing these same thoughts this weekend at a party, and I almost got lynched.
"How can you defend a racist?"
"I don't. I simply defend his right to hold whatever opinion he wants to hold, without having someone take his property from him for voicing those opinions."
"How can you defend a racist?"
"I don't. I simply defend his right to hold whatever opinion he wants to hold, without having someone take his property from him for voicing those opinions."
2
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:58 pm to Cheese Grits
he doesn't "hate" bama and kentucky for winning... he makes fun of them b/c they are two of the most embarrassing fanbases in all of sports... the stories practically write themselves.
I don't see him trolling Duke Basketball fans or Stanford football fans.
I don't see him trolling Duke Basketball fans or Stanford football fans.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:58 pm to mbogo
Thats actually pretty spot on. The documented fact that it is a bigger deal to be a racist than a rapist, thief, abuser of women, etc. in the world of sports and entertainment is troubling.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:58 pm to AggieHank86
almost got lynched?... dude 
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:59 pm to lowspark12
He must've been at the Grove
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:03 pm to lowspark12
quote:
he doesn't "hate" bama and kentucky for winning... he makes fun of them b/c they are two of the most embarrassing fanbases in all of sports...
Incorrect, when he writes a dreg on Bama or UK he does so because he knows he will get hits from their respective fans, which drives his ratings up. It is like him attacking Texas - he gets ratings points from pissed off Texas fans and from happy TAMU fans. It is win - win for him to stir the pot. Limbaugh and Stern use the same method.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I simply defend his right to hold whatever opinion he wants to hold, without having someone take his property from him for voicing those opinions."
His "right" to say what he wants is fully intact as are the "rights" of other members of his association enforcing their ability to remove him from said association. He agreed to this. He will be compensated as the market determines.
There is no such thing as a "right" to hold whatever opinion you want without having to face the consequences.
The only "right" you have with respect to free speech is that the government has limited ability to control it.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:04 pm to lowspark12
quote:
he doesn't "hate" bama and kentucky for winning... he makes fun of them b/c they are two of the most embarrassing fanbases in all of sports... the stories practically write themselves.
Clay is a huge Tennessee fan so who else is he going to focus on? My only problem is he takes pictures of people, who are out of the public eye, who did absolutely nothing wrong to him or anyone else for that matter and holds them up for mocking.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:07 pm to elposter
quote:
I simply defend his right to hold whatever opinion he wants to hold, without having someone take his property from him for voicing those opinions."
Did he really write that? Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? What a dummy. You do not have a right to own an NBA team. Just like Clay does not have a right to be a lawyer.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:09 pm to StopRobot
quote:
Clay
Is basically just an internet troll like most of us. I know him. No particular athletic background or expertise to speak of. When I knew him his knowledge of sports was middle of the road among the group of guys that would talk sports. He got bored, couldn't really make it (or didn't want to try to make) as a lawyer, and found a niche writing controversial stuff mixing pop culture and sports. It's humorous to me that people seem to give his opinion some sort of credibility. His sports knowledge is pretty limited.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:14 pm to elposter
quote:
and found a niche writing controversial stuff
Yup, that's why I won't read him or even give the article any credence. He's a shock jock blogger of course he's going to think people should be able to say whatever they want without fear of consequence.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:17 pm to piggilicious
I hate Clay Travis, but
That article was spot on.
That article was spot on.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:18 pm to elposter
quote:
ELPoster:
There is no such thing as a "right" to hold whatever opinion you want without having to face the consequences.
The only "right" you have with respect to free speech is that the government has limited ability to control it.
Nice 12th-grade Civics summary of the First Amendment.
Surprise! The First Amendment is decidedly-not the only source for the idea that a person should be entitled to speak his mind in the privacy of his own home.
Did you even read the article?
Does it not concern you in the slightest that you might conceivably lose your job for expressing an opinion not shared by your boss? Imagine that you work for Hobby Lobby. You tell your wife that you believe in abortion rights. The problem? Hobby Lobby has enacted a [hypothetical] policy that their employees cannot support abortion rights. During divorce proceedings, you wife sends the MP3 of your conversation to Hobby Lobby. Next day, you get fired.
Would your termination be constitutional? Yes. Would it be right? No.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:19 pm to elposter
quote:
There is no such thing as a "right" to hold whatever opinion you want without having to face the consequences.
The only "right" you have with respect to free speech is that the government has limited ability to control it.
He literally talks about this exact issue in the article.
quote:
Now, I want to jump into the First Amendment here, which is frequently misapplied in cases such as these. The First Amendment protects us all from government punishment for our words. What it doesn't protect anyone from is freedom from the consequences of those words; that is, your private employer can certainly react to your comments, online or otherwise, and hold you accountable for them. But I'm more interested in this fact, major American corporations have become increasingly socially liberal in the past decade or so. Many corporations are every bit as powerful as governmental entities. As corporations continue to increase in power, their censorship of employee opinions can start to have many of the same impacts as governmental restraint of speech. Wal Mart employs one in every hundred workers in our country. If Wal Mart's corporate policies restrict their employees rights to comment on controversial issues, shouldn't that be a little bit scary to everyone? Add up several Wal Marts and you have a large segment of the population that doesn't have actual freedom of speech if that speech differs from the opinion of the corporation that employs them.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:23 pm to RTR America
quote:
He literally talks about this exact issue in the article.
I didn't read his article. My response was to the Aggie fan's comment at the top of this page.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:24 pm to elposter
It's not like he's bringing anything to light. You could take it a step further and ask what business is it of anyone's to tell the NBA and NFL what to do or how it should conduct its business. Any business of that magnitude has the same problems; they're distancing themselves from socially maligned rhetoric. If he wants to take them to task for being inconsistent, please do but this isn't some revelation.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:29 pm to elposter
quote:
ELPoster:
His "right" to say what he wants is fully intact as are the "rights" of other members of his association enforcing their ability to remove him from said association. He agreed to this. He will be compensated as the market determines.
I've not read the NBA Ownership Agreement. I would be rather surprised, however, to learn that it contains any provision which directly addresses the idea of taking his property from him for something that he says in private. It probably contains something like a "morals clause," allowing punishment for "embarrassing the NBA" or some such nonsense.
I don't like the guy, but he did not make any public statements. He made a series of statements in a private conversation, as to which (most would agree) he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. His "embarrassing" statements became "public" ONLY because someone made a surreptitious recording (illegal in some states) of a private conversation.
Keep in mind that his "public" behavior was such that the local NAACP was about to give him an award.
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:29 pm to JombieZombie
He wants to be the next paul finebaum.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Nice 12th-grade Civics summary of the First Amendment.
Well, it's correct, so?
quote:
Does it not concern you in the slightest that you might conceivably lose your job for expressing an opinion not shared by your boss?
I guess hypothetically (in reality I don't have the least bit of concern about this). But having a job isn't a fricking "right." That's the point.
quote:
Imagine that you work for Hobby Lobby.
Kill me now, but go on...
quote:
You tell your wife that you believe in abortion rights. The problem? Hobby Lobby has enacted a [hypothetical] policy that their employees cannot support abortion rights. During divorce proceedings, you wife sends the MP3 of your conversation to Hobby Lobby. Next day, you get fired.
Would your termination be constitutional? Yes. Would it be right? No.
Ah, the old slippery slope argument. That would be kind of a shitty thing for Hobby Lobby to do. However, as you correctly point out, without more facts I would presume that Hobby Lobby could fire me for this, particularly if I'm an at will employee. Just like I could quit Hobby Lobby whenever I want if I irrationally don't agree with some stupid belief they have. Employment is a arm's length transaction where both parties are free to end it for any reason or no reason at all (as long as it is not an illegal reason - e.g., you are black, you are a woman, you are disabled, etc.). Capitalism has a way of working that kind of stuff out. Hobby Lobby does that, then I bet they pay a price for it in the market.
Any way, back to the point. Speak your mind and make a fool of yourself all day every day, that is certainly your "right." But be prepared to pay the consequences if the market so dicates.
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 5/12/14 at 5:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
His "embarrassing" statements became "public" ONLY because someone made a surreptitious recording (illegal in some states) of a private conversation.
Well, that is certainly bad luck for him. I bet half the owners have dropped the N-word in their life at some point. Fortunately for them, it hasn't become public knowledge. The association of owners of which Sterling is a part sees the potential for a huge public relation nightmare, loss of advertisement revenue, loss or fan revenue, boycotts, all kinds of bad shite for their bottom line. Sterling has a "right" to be a racist or whatever and the others have a right to enforce whatever hook they have to get rid of him and rid themselves of a huge economic problem for themselves. If they are wrong he can sue and stop them.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News