Search This Blog

Thursday, March 5, 2015

1st Amendment Speech & Warped Belief it only protects the P.C.

Sorry there was no post yesterday..  Just didn't feel like writing for the sake of writing..

Sometimes there's not much to talk about on a given news cycle and like fine wine or good sex, we believe quality writing shouldn't be forced

And onto the present..

Before we begin, let us state this post is in no way about homosexuality...  OK... perhaps indirectly in a sorta roundabout way but its not a judgment nor criticism piece, pro or con...

Its merely a segue way to a topic of far greater importance..

Today in sports news, the New York Mets hosted Billy Bean, a former major leaguer who came out as gay after retiring and is MLB's first ambassador for inclusion, to talk at spring training.

One of the NY Mets players named Daniel Murphy expressed politely and briefly that he disagreed with the 'lifestyle' of homosexuality though had no problems with gay people.

OK.. fine..  whatever...

Then this last sentence from the mini-article really struck us:

"A Mets spokesman said on Wednesday that Murphy would no longer be discussing the issue with reporters."

WTF?!!   Are you God-Damn kidding?!!
Didn't even matter that Bean expressed he was not offended by the comment..

When did 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech become a one-way street, because one can certifiably guarantee that had Murphy said something along the lines that inclusion is wonderful and necessary, the Mets wouldn't have censored him..

Now lets be clear before we continue..  Had Murphy spewed a bunch of homophobic nonsense that made him look like a moron and put the organization in a very poor light, it would have been clearly understood that you can't have an employee make your company look poorly..

A Business' image can be as important to keeping customers as what it sells and its prices

But that not what was uttered..
The man, right or wrong, simply disagreed with how gay people live.

Fine.. ~shrug..   Who cares either way what he or any other baseball player thinks or feels on anything outside of pitching and hitting.

Really, the baseball player should never been asked in the first place what his private thoughts were on that topic or any other that have nothing to do with his on-field play.

But Murphy does have the freedom to think as he wishes and publicly express disagreement and the Mets have no right to essentially control his ability to express it.
Of course they make their employees sign contracts giving away their personal rights in exchange for the right to work and make globs of money so that's often how employers circumvent Constitutional protections.

That's what Freedom of Speech is about..  Its not just to protect words and expression we agree with or makes us happy.  Its to protect the thoughts and views that perhaps we don't want to hear but no power, governmental or employer has the moral right to censor.

"I may disagree with what you say but I defend to the Death you're right to say it.."

What ever happened to that statement in 2015??

The same nonsense occurred last April with the NFL when Michael Sam, a defensive player coming out of college to enter the NFL draft announced beforehand that he was gay..

Much of the public response especially among players and coaches was positive.

The few athletes who tweeted or publicly expressed disagreement with the lifestyle--  the Nazi Football League fined them.

The goal was to give the appearance that gays were 100% welcome and everyone was completely happily tolerant..

Even when it was a Bullshit Lie..  But the NFL wants gays buying their overpriced Nike jerseys just as much as it does heterosexuals..
Do not think for a moment sports leagues really care a fig about gay people just like they really don't care about blacks, Latinos, Asians or Jewish people..

What they care about is money..  The idea of 'Inclusion' is merely a product to push like a soda or sneaker brand that is licensed

And if it takes the phony appearance of tolerance or making Donald Sterling a sacrificial lamb or holding events at ballparks like 'Latino Heritage Night' to get butts in the seats, so be it..

And the players and coaches.. Nothing more than well paid dogs.

Its always been ironic how these people are Forced to talk to the media and yet anytime someone expresses an honest or sincere thought or opinion on Anything, the person is censored, fined, suspended and/or released..

Viva the Cliche!
Many people probably take a stand of 'Good!.. There's no place in sports for racism or anti-gay bigotry, etc..'

Hard to debate that on the face of the argument..

Of course there's that little lurking devil behind it that few think about..  the Slippery Slope

Let's move beyond the world of sports..  A woman goes to a campaign rally for a Democratic candidate and expresses their support for that politician.   Meanwhile employer X who is Republican sees the worker on TV..
Does the employer have a right to fire the employee because she supports the Donkey and the company is owned by people who support the Elephant??

Maybe the worker is a Yankees fan and the Boss, a Red Sox fan overhears the guy saying to his co-workers during lunch break "Sawx fans suck dick!"..  Is the Boss within his legal rights to fire the Yankee guy on the spot?  Or even a pay deduction or suspension?

Speaking of Red Sox, another 1st Amendment incident occurred just yesterday..

Former Boston pitcher Curt Schilling had tweeted a nice 'congratulations' note to his daughter who got accepted to some college, and a few dirtballs tweeted back some very sexually vile and infantile responses about the daughter..  

The kind of thoughts no parent would quietly tolerate
So Schilling was able to track down about 9 of the main culprits via search engines and public information, then contacted their employers or in some cases the heads of the colleges some were attending..

Ultimately one guy who happened to work in a very minor capacity for the Yankees got fired.. Some others got expelled or suspended or cut from the college sports teams they played for..

All because Schilling was mad.

Was he right to do what he did?
Some will say absolutely 'Yes' while wearing the parent 'hat'

But for us, who believe in the 1st Amendment, we argue that Schilling seriously crossed the line because who the Fuck is Curt Schilling to decide what is acceptable vs unacceptable language for everyone?

And if there was any 'crime' committed, it was up to law enforcement to decide what to do, not Schilling to take it upon himself to make a message

Remember, the tweeters and his daughter never came in contact with each other.. No direct threats of impending harm were uttered.. She was not in any reasonable imminent danger..

Schilling wasn't protecting his daughter.. He was satisfying his huge ego.

The 1st Amendment protects both words that are beautiful and disgusting...
In its purest form, it says, there is no race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation that has exclusive control and dominion over any word (example: Nigger)

Exclusions are made for physical or terroristic threats, yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, etc..

Tweeting a filthy moronic comment about wanting to enter a girl's vagina does not meet the requirement for censorship or allow the justification for a guy who feels wronged to damage another person's life.

It used to be "Sticks and Stones will Break my Bones but Words will never hurt me"..

Now in 2015, its become "Break my Bones and I can take the pain; But don't hurt my feelings with words because then the pain remains"
We tolerate so much crap in this world!

The power and corruption; the banks and Wall Street and 1% and its a ~ 'well.. whatcha' goin' to do?'

Tolerate shitty politicians and the whole fake Matrix-like System and would rather fight for its existence then its demise for fear of the boogeyman lurking saying 'Change' is good on campaign posters but Frightful in real life.

And we tolerate a world where the employer not only has the power to control what clothing you wear, the length of your hair (certain occupations), when you can eat and drink and smoke and where to sit and to spy on your phone and computer usage and length of time you're in the bathroom..
But the populace especially tolerates employers controlling what they can publicly express, especially if those words and thoughts are to be covered by media.

Thank God as Americans we still have the unlimited, unchallenged freedom to shop, consume and flick through the TV remote..

Now that's something to get Patriotic over..