Posted on 05/12/2014 12:14:46 PM PDT by kingattax
When Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones tweeted "horrible" in regards to Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on ESPN after being drafted by the St. Louis Rams on Saturday, it wasn't a moment the NFL, Sam, the Dolphins or anyone wanted.
But make no mistake, it allowed the NFL an opportunity to send a strong message: If you have public and negative comments about Sam and his sexuality, you will be punished and shamed.
Jones, a second-year strong safety who had 10 tackles in 16 games last year, tweeted "omg" right after ESPN showed Sam's reaction to being drafted. According to thephinsider.com, when asked on Twitter if he was referring to Sam kissing his boyfriend, Jones tweeted, "horrible."
The Dolphins and NFL aren't going to mess around with this type of thing. Jones was fined and suspended from all team activities until he completes educational training for his Twitter comments. The Dolphins didn't put this off. On a relatively quiet Sunday around the NFL, the Dolphins announced the punishment, put out a statement from coach Joe Philbin and an apology from Jones:
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
“What a sickening rant!”
If you think that was a rant, you need to unbunch your panties missy.
“...and while were on the subject of not accurately understanding things, you fail to grasp the obvious distinction between the specific protections of the First Amendment, and the vastly broader brush of free speech in a supposedly free society...”
If you’re so brilliant, why not enlighten me. Because I was taught that the 1st amendment was meant as a limit on the government. So that the government wouldn’t jail people, or journalists for what they say or write.
So, how do you translate this limit on governmental power to private corporations? And, assuming you want to allow the camel to get it’s nose under the tent in that case, how far are you willing to let it go? Because as we all know, give the government an inch and a mile will be taken.
“It does not have to be a legal constitutional matter. But the effect on the man is the same. He is silenced and afraid.”
That is my point, it’s not a constitutional issue. And yes, the man was silenced. It’s wrong, but it’s a societal issue, not a legal issue. The current American society is ok with persecuting people who don’t celebrate gays. It’s revolting, disgusting, and wrong, but it isn’t a first amendment issue.
Agreed. This is an issue which will not be resolved via the machinations of constitutional rubrics: the legislative process, the courts, etc. Which does beg the question are we at the point where society, having divorced the societal from the constitutional, we are to seek resolution via extra-constitutional means? I think so. The constitution was not meant for such people which means the only other avenue is to devolve into a kind of tribal factionalism and take this issue to the streets.
I never misstated anything. And from the looks of the thread, almost all agreed with my position. I guess everyone has a weak argument except you smart guy.
“I never misstated anything. And from the looks of the thread, almost all agreed with my position. I guess everyone has a weak argument except you smart guy.”
Ok, so consensus is all it takes? I guess man made global warming is a fact, because there is consensus?
Consensus on a Conservative site like FR is usually the correct path. I see no one here advocating Global Warming BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.