HawkShack.com

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10500 ... lurs-games

As a rule, I don't like efforts to legislate political correctness. Freedom of speech is protected by the Bill of Rights within our Constitution, and that includes speech that other people might object to. But in this case, I think it's clear that the language and behavior of players with regard to the lack of mutual respect for one another is getting out of hand. It's been a gradual degradation for decades, and they need to clean it up as it's no doubt spilling over into society.

I'm not sure I agree with the proposed remedy, ie a 15 yard USC penalty, and would rather the league fine players they can identify on tape as having used racial slurs, but I think it's clear that the league has to do something.

EDIT: Ridiculous rule in the first place. How to you enforce this and not enforce other words, F, and Chit, and Son of a B, you muther F, as well as Ahole, ...

You gonna let those slide while sticking it to people who use the N word? I don't get it.
So when Lynch tells MRob, "good job blocking my nigga", some ref is going to blow a whistle in Lynch's ear and penalize the team 15 yards? This will never get out of the owners meeting in one piece. This is DOA.

Stupid idea from a stupid Commissioner. Goody boy embarking on another social crusade. Good thing some industries are fail safe or this dimwit would have flown the plane into the mountain long ago....

Eaglehawk wrote:EDIT: Ridiculous rule in the first place. How to you enforce this and not enforce other words, F, and Chit, and Son of a B, you muther F, as well as Ahole, ...

You gonna let those slide while sticking it to people who use the N word? I don't get it.
So when Lynch tells MRob, "good job blocking my nigga", some ref is going to blow a whisitle in Lynch's ear and penalize the team 15 yards? This will never get out of the owners meeting in one piece. This is DOA.

I don't agree with using penalties during the game to regulate foul language. There's too many penalties to begin with and refs have enough responsibilities as it is. But I do think that fines are appropriate.

This is the type of behavior that leads to the situation in the Dolphins locker room. I'm sure someone going to ridicule the following suggestion, but are we going to wait until some guy that was subjected to the type of abuse Jonathan Martin was gets pushed over the edge and retaliates by spraying a locker room with bullets before something is done to discourage this type of atmosphere?

RiverDog wrote:
I don't agree with using penalties during the game to regulate foul language. There's too many penalties to begin with and refs have enough responsibilities as it is. But I do think that fines are appropriate.

This is the type of behavior that leads to the situation in the Dolphins locker room. I'm sure someone going to ridicule the following suggestion, but are we going to wait until some guy that was subjected to the type of abuse Jonathan Martin was gets pushed over the edge and retaliates by spraying a locker room with bullets before something is done to discourage this type of atmosphere?

Ok, we agree on the most important point of your post, the foul language during the game part. I have no answer about how to stop this in the locker room other than banning foul language there FIRST. I would not personally like that, but at least I would better understand the logic.

On second thought River, the laws are already on the books against harassment and hostile work environments where most of the NFL players would be able to take advantage of this. HR should swoop in and educate the players about their code of conduct and performance and maintain a professional atmosphere in the organization.

I will tell you one thing that is always true, the teammates always follow their leaders, and upper management. This is probably why you saw Miami's OL coach fired this week. He allowed the negative atmosphere to fester. Bad attitudes flow from the top down in MOST cases.

Eaglehawk wrote:On second thought River, the laws are already on the books against harassment and hostile work environments where most of the NFL players would be able to take advantage of this. HR should swoop in and educate the players about their code of conduct and performance and maintain a professional atmosphere in the organization.

I will tell you one thing that is always true, the teammates always follow their leaders, and upper management. This is probably why you saw Miami's OL coach fired this week. He allowed the negative atmosphere to fester. Bad attitudes flow from the top down in MOST cases.

The Dolphins purge was a sham to insulate the Owner and HC Philbin from culpability. It happens in business and politics all the time. Fire some underlings to save your own bacon.If the frigging head coach doesn't know whats going on with his team he should be fired for that.And Richie Incognito was and is the face of the *scandal* never mind there were apparently 3 linemen including Mike Pouncey involved. And Martin quit the team but the other teammate who was supposedly treated to this horrible behavior stated he had not felt like it was being done in anything more than a humorous nature and it did not bother him. The whole Dolphins thing was a joke, a league wide collective hand wringing over a weak minded puss who was unfit for a job in the NFL, coupled with Goody two shoes desire to socially engineer the game to a point of being unrecognizable. Now we are going to penalize swearing!!!!!!!!! Oh brother the zebras are already legislated to the point of incompetence and now they have to make the call on politeness.Next it will be trash talking, staring, hand clapping, welcome to the sterilization of the no fun league.

Hawktawk wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:On second thought River, the laws are already on the books against harassment and hostile work environments where most of the NFL players would be able to take advantage of this. HR should swoop in and educate the players about their code of conduct and performance and maintain a professional atmosphere in the organization.

I will tell you one thing that is always true, the teammates always follow their leaders, and upper management. This is probably why you saw Miami's OL coach fired this week. He allowed the negative atmosphere to fester. Bad attitudes flow from the top down in MOST cases.

The Dolphins purge was a sham to insulate the Owner and HC Philbin from culpability. It happens in business and politics all the time. Fire some underlings to save your own bacon.If the frigging head coach doesn't know whats going on with his team he should be fired for that.And Richie Incognito was and is the face of the *scandal* never mind there were apparently 3 linemen including Mike Pouncey involved. And Martin quit the team but the other teammate who was supposedly treated to this horrible behavior stated he had not felt like it was being done in anything more than a humorous nature and it did not bother him. The whole Dolphins thing was a joke, a league wide collective hand wringing over a weak minded puss who was unfit for a job in the NFL,coupled with Goody two shoes desire to socially engineer the game to a point of being unrecognizable. Now we are going to penalize swearing!!!!!!!!! Oh brother the zebras are already legislated to the point of incompetence and now they have to make the call on politeness.Next it will be trash talking, staring, hand clapping, welcome to the sterilization of the no fun league.

This is why I left baseball. The pussification of baseball made it impossible for me to be myself(yelling, clapping, etc) at games for fear of being kicked out of the park. It almost happened to my friend actually. The guy turned around and said I have my family here could you please tone it down? That was the last straw for my friend. Yeah he said a few choice cuss words at the pitcher, but it used to be the way every one in the park reacted. And I remember those days at the old Yankee Stadium when my dad took me, people smoking cigars next to me, screaming at the top of their lungs "he's a BUM" GET OUTTA HERE, THE UMP IS BLIND.
That to me was what made baseball so beautiful: the fans.

For me the last straw was knitting night by the Mariners! After I heard about that, I was done with professional baseball.

Even if the Mariners win a World Series, I could care less. Baseball is dead to me.

If they institute this rule, which I feel they won't but if they do, then its the beginning of the end of football as we know it.
They keep this up, fans will slowly say goodbye. This is the last man's sport in America and they are all trying to make the players and fans into pussies.

Not gonna happen with my NFL. We will have to organize and verbally fight back. If not, then enjoy the NFL...without me.

Hawktawk wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:On second thought River, the laws are already on the books against harassment and hostile work environments where most of the NFL players would be able to take advantage of this. HR should swoop in and educate the players about their code of conduct and performance and maintain a professional atmosphere in the organization.

I will tell you one thing that is always true, the teammates always follow their leaders, and upper management. This is probably why you saw Miami's OL coach fired this week. He allowed the negative atmosphere to fester. Bad attitudes flow from the top down in MOST cases.

The Dolphins purge was a sham to insulate the Owner and HC Philbin from culpability. It happens in business and politics all the time. Fire some underlings to save your own bacon.If the frigging head coach doesn't know whats going on with his team he should be fired for that.And Richie Incognito was and is the face of the *scandal* never mind there were apparently 3 linemen including Mike Pouncey involved. And Martin quit the team but the other teammate who was supposedly treated to this horrible behavior stated he had not felt like it was being done in anything more than a humorous nature and it did not bother him. The whole Dolphins thing was a joke, a league wide collective hand wringing over a weak minded puss who was unfit for a job in the NFL, coupled with Goody two shoes desire to socially engineer the game to a point of being unrecognizable. Now we are going to penalize swearing!!!!!!!!! Oh brother the zebras are already legislated to the point of incompetence and now they have to make the call on politeness.Next it will be trash talking, staring, hand clapping, welcome to the sterilization of the no fun league.

I'm not sure if you can extend responsibility of the Martin-Incognito issue clear up to the ownership. Although I'm sure it was much worse in Miami than in other locker rooms around the league, players and former players have stated consistently that this type of thing is not unusual and goes on in every NFL locker room in the league. I don't think we can expect the ownership to be that in touch with exactly what is being said by whom and to whom in their locker room. There's a lot of layers of management between the owner and the players. Philbin was only there for one season, otherwise I would have expected him to have been tossed over this, too.

If they can clean up the behavior and treatment of players without any new rules and without impacting the game on the field, then I am all for it. But something has to be done. I've never liked the trash talking and unsportsmanlike behavior that's been progressively getting worse for decades, and it's one of the things that turns me off about Richard Sherman. I don't mind the bantering and psychological warfare that goes on during a game, but there has to be a line, and use of the 'N' word seems like a good place to put that line. Blacks themselves ought to be all for a crack down. They can't condone the use of it within their own race yet claim to be outraged when someone like Riley Cooper doesn't even direct it at a player and they get all bent out of shape. It's a word that should be expunged from the English language, and they'll never get rid of it if they keep using it amongst themselves.

Liability goes to the top Riv, even with layers.
Was it so wide and prevalent at Miami that the OC should have known? I would say he must have known, layers or not. In fact I think I saw an article to that effect.

On the other issues, on black people using the word amongst themselves is a huge issue. It is in the rap music, and other groups like young Mexicans and even young whites have now co-opted that word as well. Some with negative consequences and others with none. Of course older white guys using that word will start a fight every time.

The solution: You just have to start with your own family and hope others will do their best. It should be unacceptable to use the N word in front of the family, as well as the F word as well which carries far less baggage...ever. That is the only way I see this changing.

RiverDog wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:EDIT: Ridiculous rule in the first place. How to you enforce this and not enforce other words, F, and Chit, and Son of a B, you muther F, as well as Ahole, ...

You gonna let those slide while sticking it to people who use the N word? I don't get it.
So when Lynch tells MRob, "good job blocking my nigga", some ref is going to blow a whisitle in Lynch's ear and penalize the team 15 yards? This will never get out of the owners meeting in one piece. This is DOA.

I don't agree with using penalties during the game to regulate foul language. There's too many penalties to begin with and refs have enough responsibilities as it is. But I do think that fines are appropriate.

This is the type of behavior that leads to the situation in the Dolphins locker room. I'm sure someone going to ridicule the following suggestion, but are we going to wait until some guy that was subjected to the type of abuse Jonathan Martin was gets pushed over the edge and retaliates by spraying a locker room with bullets before something is done to discourage this type of atmosphere?

So someone using racial slurs is the equivalent of pushing someone off the deep end, and into a shooting spree, and therefore we need to regulate language? Oh boy...

Good luck enforcing this one, if the league implements it.

I heard Wilbon on Pardon the Interruption yesterday saying in effect he thinks with the white commissioner and white owners it might be considered offensive to the black players in telling them how to act regarding this subject.
I don't know how much validity there is to that point of view, but I expect there to be some type of backlash should they attempt to enforce it. I think he said something about a cultural thing within some communities.
It's a real difficult thing to enforce should they even try in my opinion.

words should be taken as just that, words. You can't ban words, you'll already get busted for telling someone off or speaking your mind in the wrong place at the wrong time! That is just wrong to begin with. If someone shoots some place up, then they have problems to begin with and it would happen regardless somewhere with that person. unfortunately no one can stop them most of the time. 4 letter words are harmless and i am sorry if you don't like them but i have no problem with hearing them.

Hawktown wrote:words should be taken as just that, words. You can't ban words, you'll already get busted for telling someone off or speaking your mind in the wrong place at the wrong time! That is just wrong to begin with. If someone shoots some place up, then they have problems to begin with and it would happen regardless somewhere with that person. unfortunately no one can stop them most of the time. 4 letter words are harmless and i am sorry if you don't like them but i have no problem with hearing them.

You might not have a problem with them, but someone else might, and when you're in a public place, there damn sure are words that you are barred from saying at volumes loud enough that a casual bystander can hear.

RiverDog wrote:

Hawktown wrote:words should be taken as just that, words. You can't ban words, you'll already get busted for telling someone off or speaking your mind in the wrong place at the wrong time! That is just wrong to begin with. If someone shoots some place up, then they have problems to begin with and it would happen regardless somewhere with that person. unfortunately no one can stop them most of the time. 4 letter words are harmless and i am sorry if you don't like them but i have no problem with hearing them.

You might not have a problem with them, but someone else might, and when you're in a public place, there damn sure are words that you are barred from saying at volumes loud enough that a casual bystander can hear.

Unless you are talking about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" (which there are laws against because of SAFETY), then I just couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.
Neither can my first amendment rights.
Words ARE harmless, if they offend you, that is YOUR problem.
Politeness would have us avoid using words that are offensive, rude, lewd etc... and personally I LIKE politeness, and try to follow the rules of polite society. I think that politeness is hugely undervalued in society, BUT, societal politeness in no way shape or form trumps my first amendment rights.

I agree with you a lot Monkey, but I disagree with you a lot too (which is actually a healthy thing I reckon) ... words can be extremely harmful, especially to or around young people (I say young people because I don't mean just children).

c_hawkbob wrote:I agree with you a lot Monkey, but I disagree with you a lot too (which is actually a healthy thing I reckon) ... words can be extremely harmful, especially to or around young people (I say young people because I don't mean just children).

I don't disagree with you completely, at least in the sense that words can have power...but ultimately they have the power WE GIVE THEM over us.
Can words hurt and be harmful? Yes, if we allow them to by agreeing with them or reacting negatively to them.
But words do not control our actions, we do.
Therefore, in the end, words are utterly powerless EXCEPT for the power we give to them.
Banning words because they offend people is an egregious attack against our first amendment rights.

monkey wrote:

RiverDog wrote:

Hawktown wrote:words should be taken as just that, words. You can't ban words, you'll already get busted for telling someone off or speaking your mind in the wrong place at the wrong time! That is just wrong to begin with. If someone shoots some place up, then they have problems to begin with and it would happen regardless somewhere with that person. unfortunately no one can stop them most of the time. 4 letter words are harmless and i am sorry if you don't like them but i have no problem with hearing them.

You might not have a problem with them, but someone else might, and when you're in a public place, there damn sure are words that you are barred from saying at volumes loud enough that a casual bystander can hear.

Unless you are talking about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" (which there are laws against because of SAFETY), then I just couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.
Neither can my first amendment rights.
Words ARE harmless, if they offend you, that is YOUR problem.
Politeness would have us avoid using words that are offensive, rude, lewd etc... and personally I LIKE politeness, and try to follow the rules of polite society. I think that politeness is hugely undervalued in society, BUT, societal politeness in no way shape or form trumps my first amendment rights.

Your rights end where my nose (or in this case, my ears) begins.

And I absolutely disagree with your assentation that words are harmless. Just ask any woman (or man, for that matter) that has been verbally abused.

RiverDog wrote:Your rights end where my nose (or in this case, my ears) begins.


And I absolutely disagree with your assentation that words are harmless. Just ask any woman (or man, for that matter) that has been verbally abused.

Oh shoot...looks like I'm going to get myself into trouble again

As for where my rights end, if we are talking about my freedom of speech, it generally ends where your safety is concerned. If my words are putting your physical well being in jeopardy, then that is the line where my rights to say what I want stop.
Now, I grant you that there are SO many nuances and what if scenarios, and Constitutional scholars cannot agree about all of them, so there's little point in going into all of that.
Suffice to say, I am sure you can think of instances where what I just said above is wrong, but generally speaking my freedom of speech trumps your freedom from said speech, as you are always able to just walk away or break off the relationship or report me to your boss or etc...

And of course, my right to say what I want does NOT protect me from the possible consequences of saying hurtful things to people either.
If I go around at my place of employment, saying things that are crude, vulgar, mean, etc... I might end up losing my job.
Obviously, workplace environment is exactly the topic at hand, and so there are workplace freedom of speech nuances that are involved.
I guess what I am saying is, I don't completely disagree with you Riverdog, just partly. I almost reflexively react to people trying to take away freedoms of speech, and I probably err on that side, where you clearly err on the other.

Here's where I get into trouble though... Riv, I grew up my entire childhood, seeing the power of abuse, verbal and any other form of abuse you want to name. If the court ever wants to call an expert witness, I am that witness.
Physical, mental and verbal abuse...been there, bought the t-shirt, had to clean off the bloodstains.

Trouble is, any woman who was verbally abused, unless she was being held against her will, or physically being threatened in some way that kept her where she was, also had the right to leave at any time.
Therefore, ultimately, she GAVE those words power to hurt her, by staying in the situation and listening to them.
Abuse is WRONG, period end of story, and any man who raises a hand to a woman is NOT a man! There is no wiggle room. But my entire childhood was filled with parents and grandparents who abused each other in ways that seem...unbelievable to outsiders.
Still ultimately, they GAVE those words the power to hurt, by listening to them, because they could have left at ANY time, but CHOSE not to.
It's nice to imagine that the "victims" of abuse had no choices, but the vast majority of the time, they do. It's my experience that there is almost always a way out of even the worst situations.
Verbal abuse only has the power you give it.
It's like what I learned about responsibility in the Navy, you can delegate AUTHORITY, but you can never delegate responsibility. Ultimately, what is yours to be responsible for is yours, and no matter what other people do to you, say to you...it is still ultimately YOUR responsibility.

So when people tell me that, "my dad called me stupid all my life, and so I turned out bad", (or whatever variation on that you can come up with), I tend to get angry with them. That is victim mentality, and while understandable, it's really no better than the abusers actions, since the victim mentality enables the abuser to do what they do.

It almost sounds like you are blaming the victim.
Everyone reacts differently to whatever stimulus is presented.
In this case, some fight it off and progress, others absorb it until it becomes too much for them, some flee the situation, and more.
Some just aren't strong enough to make the change when confronted with any strong challenge.

NorthHawk wrote:It almost sounds like you are blaming the victim.
Everyone reacts differently to whatever stimulus is presented.
In this case, some fight it off and progress, others absorb it until it becomes too much for them, some flee the situation, and more.
Some just aren't strong enough to make the change when confronted with any strong challenge.

It almost sounds that way, because by and large, they are at least partly responsible for ongoing/continued abuse.

Think of that physically abused woman and mother, who knows that her daughter is being sexually abused by their father, and yet is too scared to do something about it, too frightened, or too busy lying to herself about how bad it is, or about whether it is happening at all, to report it to authorities, or to stand up to him, or just to run away.

Yes the father is a sick pig who needs to have his niblets cut off, then spend the rest of his life rotting in prison; but the mother, who also has a RESPONSIBILITY to care for her child, is also culpable. She ALLOWS it, if not actively enabling it.

So yes, I do at least partly blame the victim, because without victim mentality, continued, ongoing abuse cannot happen.
As someone who has done foster care for years now, and adopted four kids out of the foster care system, combined with my own personal experience I can tell you that victims mentality is as almost as ugly a thing as the actual abuse...one cannot exist without the other, because if the enabler didn't allow the abuser to continue, their abuse, it wouldn't at least most of the time.

*Disclaimer* I am speaking in generalities, there are always exceptions to every rule, such as children who sadly have no choice but to take the abuse from their parents.

You'd think by now that we have figured this out by now. Personally speaking I don't care about language much. I think "foul" language is actually very useful at times when you're trying to convey a particular idea, emotion or thought in a succinct matter. But we don't live in my own personal world.

Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak your mind without fear of government sanctions. It is does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want to whomever you want without consequence. So sure you can say any filthy thing your heart desires but if you say it to the wrong person under the wrong circumstances I'm not going to feel sorry for you for a second if you get your ass whooped, fired or thrown out of an establishment that frowns on use of such language. I think that maybe in some areas people have errored too far on the side of caution at times but we all know what's expected.

I think trying to legislate this on the football field (or any sporting arena) is kind of ridiculous and I'm not sure how they're going to enforce it. I don't gather refs are going to be any more willing to potentially swing a game for something like this than they were when they tried to institute a crowd noise rule (and that was only 5 yards). But I don't even think this is about being PC. I think this probably has more to do with the growing popularity of having players micced for games.

kalibane wrote:You'd think by now that we have figured this out by now. Personally speaking I don't care about language much. I think "foul" language is actually very useful at times when you're trying to convey a particular idea, emotion or thought in a succinct matter. But we don't live in my own personal world.

Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak your mind without fear of government sanctions. It is does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want to whomever you want without consequence. So sure you can say any filthy thing your heart desires but if you say it to the wrong person under the wrong circumstances I'm not going to feel sorry for you for a second if you get your ass whooped, fired or thrown out of an establishment that frowns on use of such language. I think that maybe in some areas people have errored too far on the side of caution at times but we all know what's expected.

I think trying to legislate this on the football field (or any sporting arena) is kind of ridiculous and I'm not sure how they're going to enforce it. I don't gather refs are going to be any more willing to potentially swing a game for something like this than they were when they tried to institute a crowd noise rule (and that was only 5 yards). But I don't even think this is about being PC. I think this probably has more to do with the growing popularity of having players micced for games.

Me, too. I'll at times use mild profanity coupled with controlled anger in a lot of situations. An "aw, chit" or "Son-of-a-bitch" can be very effective motivational tool if properly used, plus it lets others know that you're human.

You're absolutely correct about not being able to say anything you want whenever and wherever you want, which is what I'm hearing from monkey. I've seen countless patrons either bounced from a public place, cut off from service, or told in no uncertain terms to clean it up or else. It's no different than dress codes at schools, golf courses, etc. You don't have a right to start dropping F-bombs in a public place anymore that you have a right to walk into a bar barefoot.

RiverDog wrote:You're absolutely correct about not being able to say anything you want whenever and wherever you want, which is what I'm hearing from monkey.

It is???

monkey wrote:
And of course, my right to say what I want does NOT protect me from the possible consequences of saying hurtful things to people either.
If I go around at my place of employment, saying things that are crude, vulgar, mean, etc... I might end up losing my job.
Obviously, workplace environment is exactly the topic at hand, and so there are workplace freedom of speech nuances that are involved.
I guess what I am saying is, I don't completely disagree with you Riverdog, just partly.

monkey wrote:

RiverDog wrote:You're absolutely correct about not being able to say anything you want whenever and wherever you want, which is what I'm hearing from monkey.

It is???

monkey wrote:
And of course, my right to say what I want does NOT protect me from the possible consequences of saying hurtful things to people either.
If I go around at my place of employment, saying things that are crude, vulgar, mean, etc... I might end up losing my job.
Obviously, workplace environment is exactly the topic at hand, and so there are workplace freedom of speech nuances that are involved.
I guess what I am saying is, I don't completely disagree with you Riverdog, just partly.

Perhaps I didn't completely understand you, Monkey, but I do get the sense that you feel that the league isn't on higher ground with respect to this proposed initiative.

Vulgarity and profane comments are extreme examples meant to make a point. There is other verbiage besides the use of profanity that you definitely can't say in the workplace, more so than even public places like restaurants and bars. I see no legal or ethical problem with what the NFL is trying to do to discourage the use of inflammatory or disrespectful language by their employees while they're on the job.

As for where my rights end, if we are talking about my freedom of speech, it generally ends where your safety is concerned.

Monkey is right.

The NFL can penalize whoever they want for whatever they want, but the general discussion about "free speech" begins and ends with this quote.

I won't use the N-word, ever, regardless of whether AAs use it among themselves, because I know what its history indicates and I've never met one of them who liked hearing me say it. That's enough for me.

But free speech in this country isn't limited to what *doesn't* offend you, and in fact it was created precisely to protect that which *does* offend you.

You don't like what someone said? Call them every name in the book. But don't expect the rule of law to bail you out.

I wish more people remembered and respected that these days.

[edit]

Eh, I skipped a lot of the discussion. If we're talking about what your boss will or will not accept, that's a different discussion than I'm having (perhaps with myself).

burrrton wrote:

As for where my rights end, if we are talking about my freedom of speech, it generally ends where your safety is concerned.

Monkey is right.

The NFL can penalize whoever they want for whatever they want, but the general discussion about "free speech" begins and ends with this quote.

I won't use the N-word, ever, regardless of whether AAs use it among themselves, because I know what its history indicates and I've never met one of them who liked hearing me say it. That's enough for me.

But free speech in this country isn't limited to what *doesn't* offend you, and in fact it was created precisely to protect that which *does* offend you.

You don't like what someone said? Call them every name in the book. But don't expect the rule of law to bail you out.

I wish more people remembered and respected that these days.

[edit]

Eh, I skipped a lot of the discussion. If we're talking about what your boss will or will not accept, that's a different discussion than I'm having (perhaps with myself).

LOL! Yea, we lost you a few posts ago. My last comment was more work place specific. When you think about it, we're very limited as to the topics we are allowed to discuss at the work place.

RiverDog wrote:

burrrton wrote:

As for where my rights end, if we are talking about my freedom of speech, it generally ends where your safety is concerned.

Monkey is right.

The NFL can penalize whoever they want for whatever they want, but the general discussion about "free speech" begins and ends with this quote.

I won't use the N-word, ever, regardless of whether AAs use it among themselves, because I know what its history indicates and I've never met one of them who liked hearing me say it. That's enough for me.

But free speech in this country isn't limited to what *doesn't* offend you, and in fact it was created precisely to protect that which *does* offend you.

You don't like what someone said? Call them every name in the book. But don't expect the rule of law to bail you out.

I wish more people remembered and respected that these days.

[edit]

Eh, I skipped a lot of the discussion. If we're talking about what your boss will or will not accept, that's a different discussion than I'm having (perhaps with myself).

LOL! Yea, we lost you a few posts ago. My last comment was more work place specific. When you think about it, we're very limited as to the topics we are allowed to discuss at the work place.

Wouldn't that depend on the work place? Been in a lot of different work environments in my life, what is acceptable in one isn't always so in another, the way construction workers interact isn't going to fly in an office setting etc. Not saying it is right, or that it is necessarily comparable, just that sometimes the setting matters, and I am not sure the NFL and even fans have this setting diagnosed correctly. Big difference between saying this shouldn't be said, and outlawing it IMHO. Just find it fascinating that guys who go to work in three piece suits everyday, think they have everything dialed in in regards to the "grunts" actually doing the work.

Not saying in the least they shouldn't address it, just that this zero tolerance policy might not be the best way to do it ( at least on the field), I'm down for a fine system ( within reason) but if my team loses a game over a word, I'm going to lose it, specially if a ref "thinks" he hears it and throws a flag, only to have the 60,000 plus fans screaming their heads off obscure what was said. Plenty of things said on the field, I would venture a guess, that that one word isn't the "worst" of it.

RiverDog wrote:

burrrton wrote:

As for where my rights end, if we are talking about my freedom of speech, it generally ends where your safety is concerned.

Monkey is right.

The NFL can penalize whoever they want for whatever they want, but the general discussion about "free speech" begins and ends with this quote.

I won't use the N-word, ever, regardless of whether AAs use it among themselves, because I know what its history indicates and I've never met one of them who liked hearing me say it. That's enough for me.

But free speech in this country isn't limited to what *doesn't* offend you, and in fact it was created precisely to protect that which *does* offend you.

You don't like what someone said? Call them every name in the book. But don't expect the rule of law to bail you out.

I wish more people remembered and respected that these days.

[edit]

Eh, I skipped a lot of the discussion. If we're talking about what your boss will or will not accept, that's a different discussion than I'm having (perhaps with myself).

LOL! Yea, we lost you a few posts ago. My last comment was more work place specific. When you think about it, we're very limited as to the topics we are allowed to discuss at the work place.

Sorry, double post.

Just to say Riverdog, while I'm pretty sure you and I would disagree on what the limits on speech should be in a workplace , I definitely agree with you that when it comes to workplace language, (which again is exactly what we are talking about here), then the rules change a bit. I agree with you on that.
What I think caused the misunderstanding was, I was addressing two separate things in my posts, both free speech in general and work place language and that probably came off as confusing.

The more I think about this proposed rule, the more I hope it doesn't pass.

If they're gonna throw a flag for this, keep it in the context of taunting or unsportsmanlike conduct. The problem was really created the minute they decided to target this word specifically, which seemingly gives a green light to all other expletives in the process, at least in terms of words that apparently won't be flagged.

You better outlaw all of the cuss words then. Because if you outlaw this word, you will have to outlaw the rest.
Not easy to do with such a violent sport. And when you have young men involved that have a hard time thinking about consequences of stuff as it is.

And of course, free speech is not "free" in that it can be regulated(permits required sometimes to protest etc.) both legislatively and privately.

That being said, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our country. Too bad to see it being eroded daily.

Eaglehawk wrote:You better outlaw all of the cuss words then. Because if you outlaw this word, you will have to outlaw the rest.
Not easy to do with such a violent sport. And when you have young men involved that have a hard time thinking about consequences of stuff as it is.

And of course, free speech is not "free" in that it can be regulated(permits required sometimes to protest etc.) both legislatively and privately.

That being said, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our country. Too bad to see it being eroded daily.

The permits that are required for demonstrations has to do with public safety and doesn't restrict what a person or group of persons can say. They allow for a plan to keep traffic flowing and to insure that emergency services are not interrupted. You would appreciate that if your mother suffered a heart attack and the ambulance couldn't get to her in time because access was being blocked by an unauthorized demonstration.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution with regard to the first amendment was political in nature. The concern was limiting people from speaking out against their government. First amendment issues includes things like campaign financing and equal time for the opposition party after the President's State of the Union address. If the league does adapt this initiative, I don't see the First Amendment as having been trampled on.

RiverDog wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:You better outlaw all of the cuss words then. Because if you outlaw this word, you will have to outlaw the rest.
Not easy to do with such a violent sport. And when you have young men involved that have a hard time thinking about consequences of stuff as it is.

And of course, free speech is not "free" in that it can be regulated(permits required sometimes to protest etc.) both legislatively and privately.

That being said, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our country. Too bad to see it being eroded daily.

The permits that are required for demonstrations has to do with public safety and doesn't restrict what a person or group of persons can say. They allow for a plan to keep traffic flowing and to insure that emergency services are not interrupted. You would appreciate that if your mother suffered a heart attack and the ambulance couldn't get to her in time because access was being blocked by an unauthorized demonstration.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution with regard to the first amendment was political in nature. The concern was limiting people from speaking out against their government. First amendment issues includes things like campaign financing and equal time for the opposition party after the President's State of the Union address. If the league does adapt this initiative, I don't see the First Amendment as having been trampled on.

River, actually permits, and city governments can restrict what you can say. Obscene speech for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Offensive speech is. Huge difference.

And yes, the NFL has the right to regulate whatever the hell it wants since its a private entity, I just don't see how practically this works. And I don't want people to be polarized even more in this country than what they already are. White guys will not be saying this word, black guys will. And it will not be meant in a racial way so how will this help things? This ruling will not help things River, while I know that both you and I want the same thing, I don't see how they can cleanly implement this. What do you think will happen in the scenario I just mentioned?

Eaglehawk wrote:

RiverDog wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:You better outlaw all of the cuss words then. Because if you outlaw this word, you will have to outlaw the rest.
Not easy to do with such a violent sport. And when you have young men involved that have a hard time thinking about consequences of stuff as it is.

And of course, free speech is not "free" in that it can be regulated(permits required sometimes to protest etc.) both legislatively and privately.

That being said, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our country. Too bad to see it being eroded daily.

The permits that are required for demonstrations has to do with public safety and doesn't restrict what a person or group of persons can say. They allow for a plan to keep traffic flowing and to insure that emergency services are not interrupted. You would appreciate that if your mother suffered a heart attack and the ambulance couldn't get to her in time because access was being blocked by an unauthorized demonstration.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution with regard to the first amendment was political in nature. The concern was limiting people from speaking out against their government. First amendment issues includes things like campaign financing and equal time for the opposition party after the President's State of the Union address. If the league does adapt this initiative, I don't see the First Amendment as having been trampled on.

River, actually permits, and city governments can restrict what you can say. Obscene speech for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Offensive speech is. Huge difference.

And yes, the NFL has the right to regulate whatever the hell it wants since its a private entity, I just don't see how practically this works. And I don't want people to be polarized even more in this country than what they already are. White guys will not be saying this word, black guys will. And it will not be meant in a racial way so how will this help things? This ruling will not help things River, while I know that both you and I want the same thing, I don't see how they can cleanly implement this. What do you think will happen in the scenario I just mentioned?

OK, I'll grant you the point that obscene speech is not protected by #1. My point was that the reason groups must have permits granted prior to a demonstration has to do with public safety concerns, not the general content of the speech itself. It seemed to me that you had indicated that it was the speech itself that was being regulated.

I've never liked the hypocrisy of blacks being OK with a 'brother' saying the N word yet are supremely insulted when a white uses it. Perhaps if the NFL bans it, they can start a trend of everyone rejecting the use of the term instead of it being one whose appropriate use is determined by the color of your skin. If blacks don't like the term being used by whites, they will never rid themselves of it by accepting its use amongst themselves. The word will continue to live.

I don't know how the league is going to evenly implement this policy. Like I said before, I object to referees being the judge and would rather see fines be levied based on audio recordings. We have too damn many penalties now and refs have too much on their platter. But I approve of the concept.

RiverDog wrote:
OK, I'll grant you the point that obscene speech is not protected by #1. My point was that the reason groups must have permits granted prior to a demonstration has to do with public safety concerns, not the general content of the speech itself. It seemed to me that you had indicated that it was the speech itself that was being regulated.

I've never liked the hypocrisy of blacks being OK with a 'brother' saying the N word yet are supremely insulted when a white uses it. Perhaps if the NFL bans it, they can start a trend of everyone rejecting the use of the term instead of it being one whose appropriate use is determined by the color of your skin. If blacks don't like the term being used by whites, they will never rid themselves of it by accepting its use amongst themselves. The word will continue to live.

I don't know how the league is going to evenly implement this policy. Like I said before, I object to referees being the judge and would rather see fines be levied based on audio recordings. We have too damn many penalties now and refs have too much on their platter. But I approve of the concept.

Yup, Riv, I was just talking about how governments can regulate free speech nothing more nothing less. There is no absolute freedom to our First Amendment rights.
But its a strong right. It allows you to disagree with someone publicly and openly, and allows the other person to answer back. My issue about our FA rights deals with how our gvt has been illegally taping journalists, intimidating news reporter sources, and generally creating a chilling effect on people's ability to be a whistleblower on the federal level because of fear of retribution. That is just me though. I am sure most of the people on here save a few probably don't even know what I am talking about.

And yes I agree 100 percent with your statement Riv about the hypocrisy of blacks in this area. Again you have to start with the rappers and pop culture. That's where this comes from. And also the understanding of the fact that the N word is not spelled with a er at the end but with an a. So the brothers feel its not even the same word. See what I am saying? And that is where I am coming from. Are we talking about the er ending or the "nigga" term which is what the brothers throw around all the time? Which word will be banned? I have no idea. If they ban the "er" word then it's okay. I still don't think it will work but at least I would understand. That is the word they use down South and unfortunately many other states including the West, East and North. But the other term? Now you are banning two words, not one. If you want to implement this word, firstly, make up your mind. This topic Riv, is as confusing as hell.

You, River, don't even know how they will implement this. And because I can't see how they will do it either I say don't even try it! And yeah, we both agree as to the theory(or concept as you call it)(we don't want people calling others the N word (er ending)(and some not liking its derivation with the "a" ending) on the field, but the implementation is the monkeys wrench. There is no way the refs get into this without the risk of some of them getting death threats. Which is why I disagree with the entire idea.This is football, I don't want to be reminded of race when I watch a football game River. This is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but in practice will absolutely NOT WORK.

I'm actually happy about this. I hate that word, and wish it would die along with racism.

Eaglehawk wrote:

RiverDog wrote:
OK, I'll grant you the point that obscene speech is not protected by #1. My point was that the reason groups must have permits granted prior to a demonstration has to do with public safety concerns, not the general content of the speech itself. It seemed to me that you had indicated that it was the speech itself that was being regulated.

I've never liked the hypocrisy of blacks being OK with a 'brother' saying the N word yet are supremely insulted when a white uses it. Perhaps if the NFL bans it, they can start a trend of everyone rejecting the use of the term instead of it being one whose appropriate use is determined by the color of your skin. If blacks don't like the term being used by whites, they will never rid themselves of it by accepting its use amongst themselves. The word will continue to live.

I don't know how the league is going to evenly implement this policy. Like I said before, I object to referees being the judge and would rather see fines be levied based on audio recordings. We have too damn many penalties now and refs have too much on their platter. But I approve of the concept.

Yup, Riv, I was just talking about how governments can regulate free speech nothing more nothing less. There is no absolute freedom to our First Amendment rights.
But its a strong right. It allows you to disagree with someone publicly and openly, and allows the other person to answer back. My issue about our FA rights deals with how our gvt has been illegally taping journalists, intimidating news reporter sources, and generally creating a chilling effect on people's ability to be a whistleblower on the federal level because of fear of retribution. That is just me though. I am sure most of the people on here save a few probably don't even know what I am talking about.

And yes I agree 100 percent with your statement Riv about the hypocrisy of blacks in this area. Again you have to start with the rappers and pop culture. That's where this comes from. And also the understanding of the fact that the N word is not spelled with a er at the end but with an a. So the brothers feel its not even the same word. See what I am saying? And that is where I am coming from. Are we talking about the er ending or the "nigga" term which is what the brothers throw around all the time? Which word will be banned? I have no idea. If they ban the "er" word then it's okay. I still don't think it will work but at least I would understand. That is the word they use down South and unfortunately many other states including the West, East and North. But the other term? Now you are banning two words, not one. If you want to implement this word, firstly, make up your mind. This topic Riv, is as confusing as hell.

You, River, don't even know how they will implement this. And because I can't see how they will do it either I say don't even try it! And yeah, we both agree as to the theory(or concept as you call it)(we don't want people calling others the N word (er ending) on the field, but the implementation is the monkeys wrench. There is no way the refs get into this without the risk of some of them getting death threats. Which is why I disagree with the entire idea.This is football, I don't want to be reminded of race when I watch a football game River. This is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but in practice will absolutely NOT WORK.

It allows you to disagree with the government openly and publicly. It doesn't necessarily allow you to disagree openly and publicly with other entities openly and publicly, such as your employer.

I'm not saying it will work, but it certainly won't work if they don't try it.

I will restate what you and I already said: that private employers like the NFL can do whatever they want legally re free speech in the workplace.
No doubt about it.

That doesn't mean it makes sense.