FavreFan wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Not calling out leash or ltg but it was a good starting point, but the same logic would apply here.
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?p=2818744#p2818744No, it wouldn't. If McHale used his job and it's platform to address political issues then you would have a valid comparison. Currently you don't.
Nah this is special pleading. Kaepernick did nothing against the rules of his workplace when he was exercising his free speech, just as McHale hasn't either.
This isn't even worth responding to.
As usual on this forum, it seems like free speech should refer to robust norms and what's right or wrong rather than merely legal when it comes to right-wing people having to face consequences for their speech, but what's merely legal when it's anyone on the left facing consequences.
This strikes me as much ado about nothing anyway. Shaq and especially Barkley have promoted awful politics for years and the latter even got a whole show from TNT to promote his particular brand of respectability politics. This just strikes me as CH hate reading NBA Twitter and tilting at windmills, as he did throughout the playoffs.
I agree with most of your second paragraph and don't really understand what you're trying to say in your first. What consequences should Mchale have to face for going to see our President speak? The whole notion is absurd.
I don't think he should necessarily face any consequences. I just happen to think the same standard one uses to judge this case should be consistent with how one judges cases where one may disagree more strongly with another person's exercise of free speech.
Leash's post expresses a coherent and consistent position on this. Personally I am not in favor of the idea that any employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason at any time and think that kind of employer discretion is pretty damn dangerous (far more so than any Twitter outrage mob). But I think if you are in favor of that kind of narrow legal standard when it comes to people you disagree with facing consequences for their speech, you better be ready to embrace it for cases where people you agree with (or even merely neutral about) face consequences for their speech as well. And you better be ready for people you disagree with, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, to look to mobilize their own outrage.
Edit for your edit:
Quote:
Edit: I was also the most vocal Kaep backer on the board so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your double standard talk.
I don't recall a lot of the Kaepernick thread, but I'll just say that very frequently on this board, when conservatives face consequences for their speech or are no-platformed, there's a sudden shift from talking about free speech as a procedural right that doesn't guarantee freedom from consequences to a more robust understanding of free speech as a social norm where it's unhealthy and undesirable for such regulations and consequences to occur. Recent examples of this include Sommers, Ingraham, and the idiot TA trying to teach Jordan Peterson. When it comes to people on the left losing their jobs for their speech however, we're back to speaking only in terms of what's strictly allowable under the law, rather than any robust understanding of free speech.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
