Dolphins fine and suspend player for tweeting negative comment about Michael Sam

Yahoo ^ | 5-12-14 | By Frank Schwab

[brownsfan]

“What a sickening rant!”

If you think that was a rant, you need to unbunch your panties missy.

[brownsfan]

“...and while we’re 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.

[brownsfan]

“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.

[brownsfan]

"Go f yourself! "

First refuge of a weak argument.

"You know my point was that if the employer was punishing someone for publicly stating pro gay marriage beliefs you can bet that the Feds would find a way come down on the business. Nowhere did I state that the employer has no right to punish employees. If you cannot see this as a one-sided PC bill squeezins then it is you who has a reading comprehension problem."

Misstating a position makes you appear to lack depth of thought. Not a way to win an argument. It is not a constitutional first amendment issue. The first amendment is meant to restrain government. If the Feds attack an employer, in the case you present, they can't go directly at them under the first amendment. I agree, the Feds would find a way. The problem isn't a constitutional issue, it's a societal issue. Our society is beyond sick, and is headed to a monumental collapse.

[JPX2011]

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.

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.

[ohioman]

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.

[brownsfan]

“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?

[ohioman]

Consensus on a Conservative site like FR is usually the correct path. I see no one here advocating Global Warming BS.

[rhema]