Freedom of Speech in Sports

[savage1]

Here is the question:
With all of the hullabaloo of late with such things as Marc Cuban being fined $250K for criticizing the officiating in the NBA and Ozzie Guillen being required to attend sensitivity lesson for calling a writer a fag, 1) where do you personally draw the line as to what an owner, manager or player can say without being reprimanded and/or fined and 2) do you think that in the above instances (Cuban and Guillen) one of the tenets of this country, freedom of speech, has been violated with the penalties imposed.

[TwoTonTony]

Here is the question:
With all of the hullabaloo of late with such things as Marc Cuban being fined $250K for criticizing the officiating in the NBA and Ozzie Guillen being required to attend sensitivity lesson for calling a writer a fag, 1) where do you personally draw the line as to what an owner, manager or player can say without being reprimanded and/or fined and 2) do you think that in the above instances (Cuban and Guillen) one of the tenets of this country, freedom of speech, has been violated with the penalties imposed.

no - they are representing a league or company....therefore can be told what guidelines they must adhere to.....I mean is the yankees no facial hair policy unconstitutional??? this smells of something the aclu would support and frankly i think it is BS.....

There are rules and regulations regarding conduct and non-adherence of those rules will not be tolerated......The rules are designed to keep order.....without them it would be chaotic and would be a sideshow......Why do some coaches have gag orders on players??? I think that would fall more into what you are asking as well......I think whatever the coach/boss/owner/commisssioner says goes....period ....end of story!!!

[savage1]

I posted this in the thread about Marc Cuban, but am posting it again here, because I want to be sure everyone in this topic has sees it, because it is relevant, interesting and yes because I agree with it.

This writer summarizes my feelings:

NBA refs deserve scrutiny
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Everybody loves to bash Mark Cuban, who makes George Steinbrenner look meek by comparison.

Incensed over the officiating, the Dallas Mavericks owner was fined $250,000 after a tirade that turned Dwyane Wade, Dirk Nowitzki and the entire NBA Finals into secondary stories.

One story said Cuban went so far as to call the NBA "rigged," a report he denies. David Stern is livid, but I'm glad someone - even a filthy rich know-it-all from Dallas - is willing to say what millions of others have wondered about for years.
Cuban has been fined 13 times for exercising his right of free speech, which applies everywhere in America except where sports officials are involved. You can call the President a murderer, and you'll get a political debate. But criticize the refs, and you could be out 250 grand.
If the darkest NBA conspiracy theories were true - that outcomes are manipulated based on anything from a player's star status to better TV ratings - the scandal would exceed any in sports history.
Do I think the referees go out to purposely determine who wins? Absolutely not. But Cuban's misgivings give voice to real credibility issues that have haunted the NBA for years.
In a just world, the referees are supposed to take a blind eye to everything except the play itself. They're supposed to ignore the score, homecourt, players' star status and market size.
Who among us hasn't watched an NBA game, and wondered if that's being compromised?
This week, I asked several fans if they thought outside factors affected calls in NBA games. Every one said yes.
If this reflects a national attitude, isn't that a huge credibility problem, even if everybody is wrong?
NBA refs deserve scrutiny
Page 2 of 2
This is a gigantic issue. If the referees are not credible, the NBA is no longer a true sports entity. It's sheer entertainment, like a good, scripted movie.
Even if the referees' only crime is ineptitude, the NBA has brought this on itself. By marketing entertainment above sport, it's obliterated the line between the two.
Baseball umpires, and football and hockey referees, are called incompetent all the time - but rarely accused of trying to choreograph the endings. In the NBA, though, perceived officiating biases are so ingrained that a lot of people accept them as a fact of life.
Because Cuban is so rich, the NBA can't hurt him with fines that keep others from speaking out. Some even justify the $250,000 because he can afford it.
That's weak. It's still outrageous.
There's also a suspicion his comments expose his Mavs to retribution from the referees. As if that's OK, too.
I don't think everyone who questions NBA officiating is a conspiracy theorist or a wacko, but even if they are, they have the right.
Some folks think it's too bad a guy's billions give him license to be a sore loser. I think it's too bad it takes a rich loudmouth to say what so many others have been wondering about for years, long before Cuban arrived.
Ron Chimelis can be reached at [email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TwoTonTony]

i agree that the NBA has referess who make sure the stars get the calls and all games are close at the end.....Mark Cuban is right......And his freedom of speech was not effected.....he said it freely and now he has to deal with the repercussions.....That is it.....pure and simple.....So he must ask himself is it worth it? He has ex nba refs grading ref's performances after games...come on that is ridiculous.....He is an egomaniac who loves the attention....I am afraid it is turning more into a sidehow and distraction for his team.....

Why petition and cry during the series?? It does no good...the time to do it would be after the series....It obviously effected everyone from him to avery johnson....I believe it creates a scapegoat mentality and gives you an excuse to lose.....

I do not believe this is a freedom of speech issue at all.....not 1 iota!!!

[savage1]

I personally believe David Stern is and has always been on as much an ego trip (if not more) than Cuban.
I mean for example who is David Stern to decide how players should dress? That is an issue that should be decided by the teams and NOT by what Stern thinks is acceptable to HIM!

[TwoTonTony]

I personally believe David Stern is and has always been on as much an ego trip (if not more) than Cuban.
I mean for example who is David Stern to decide how players should dress? That is an issue that should be decided by the teams and NOT by what Stern thinks is acceptable to HIM!

i will answer that question.....1st of all the NBA is a company and can set up codes of conduct and dress for their employees.....Yes stern has an ego...but he is the steward of the ship that has been made successful by him and his long term plan....remember when only the celts and lakers were profitable......The CEO of my big pharma company...what right did he tell me i had to wear a suit and tie to work everyday?? what is the difference???? None.....Here is the logic....Young blacks are the primary players in this game...over 75%.....white males are the primary audience over 80% (ticket buyers).....The dress and ghetto/rap style that had been shown by these players was not the image he wanted to project.....I mean there is enough bad pub already....felonies, multiple women impregnated.......It was simply and image thing....No different than George not letting the Yanks have facial hair........It is a dress code.....what is the big deal...Should they be able to wear baggy jeans hanging down past their asses?? Is that the type of expression you are looking for???
The NFL fines its players if they do not wear the right color socks on the field.......Shouldn't they be able to wear any color they want? My UPS gal has beautiful tits and blue eyes....Why should she have to wear brown??? She looks terrible in it...She should be able to compliment her fine features with whatever she chooses, right savage??? She should be able to express herself....maybe even wear a bikini....

[savage1]

If what you say is true, then how come each baseball team including the Yankees sets at least its own codes such as facial hair and NOT the commissioner?
I would think that someone like yourself tending toward conservatism would consider someone like Stern as big government, and that for the most part, he should stay away from issues which should be decided by the teams.
Personally I as a democrat think Stern is a meddling, lousy commissioner, and that he oversteps his boundaries way too many times.

[savage1]

i will answer that question.....1st of all the NBA is a company and can set up codes of conduct and dress for their employees.....Yes stern has an ego...but he is the steward of the ship that has been made successful by him and his long term plan....remember when only the celts and lakers were profitable......The CEO of my big pharma company...what right did he tell me i had to wear a suit and tie to work everyday?? what is the difference???? None.....Here is the logic....Young blacks are the primary players in this game...over 75%.....white males are the primary audience over 80% (ticket buyers).....The dress and ghetto/rap style that had been shown by these players was not the image he wanted to project.....I mean there is enough bad pub already....felonies, multiple women impregnated.......It was simply and image thing....No different than George not letting the Yanks have facial hair........It is a dress code.....what is the big deal...Should they be able to wear baggy jeans hanging down past their asses?? Is that the type of expression you are looking for???
The NFL fines its players if they do not wear the right color socks on the field.......Shouldn't they be able to wear any color they want? My UPS gal has beautiful tits and blue eyes....Why should she have to wear brown??? She looks terrible in it...She should be able to compliment her fine features with whatever she chooses, right savage??? She should be able to express herself....maybe even wear a bikini....

I disagree with your premise about the NBA being a company. The teams are the "companies" as they are the ones who are trying to profit, and therefore should be allowed to set their own codes and standards in many instances.

[savage1]

Tony-I have to take exception to this statement:
I agree that the NBA has referess who make sure the stars get the calls and all games are close at the end.....Mark Cuban is right......And his freedom of speech was not effected.....he said it freely and now he has to deal with the repercussions.

If one is penalized by saying something(in this case a fine), then it is not freedom of speech;that is a contradiction. It is like saying that in an a country led by a dictator, a rebel has "freedom" to say what he wants even though he may very well be executed if he says it.

[TwoTonTony]

I disagree with your premise about the NBA being a company. The teams are the "companies" as they are the ones who are trying to profit, and therefore should be allowed to set their own codes and standards in many instances.

the nba is a company savage...You do not think the League is trying to profit as well???? The NBA is a for profit organization......that the teams belong too......that they have chosen to belong to for maximum profit......If not then why not start another league???/ Because it would be another CBA.....You are really minimizing the role of the league and its strength......Without the NBA structure these cities would not be profitable...The NBA has created the marketing and structure for these teams to succeed within its framework......It is not much different than a parent corporation and its franchisees.....They all pay to belong to this solid organization (but are free to leave if they want to)...but the benefits of belonging to the structure of the NBA is more beneficial than going it alone....

Ask guys from the WFL and the ABA how things are going???? If the NBA is so bad then why do so many people fight to put a franchise in their cities???

You act as if the NBA has no role...that these teams should be renegade teams and should be able to do as they please......

The league is stronger than any one piece of the puzzle.....

The NFL was built on this concept......Following you freedom of speech logic, then why couldn;t jerry jones individually promote the cowboys without having to give his cut to the league.....Because it is the same whether it is the NFL or NBA...without the franchise belonging to either organization their merchandise has much less value....Can you say minor league??? Or independent league...

So for you to say the NBA is not a company is stupid......

So you are assuming these teams can operate without the framework of the league...

[savage1]

Tony-You make some very good points which I cannot dispute.
I still think it comes down to a judgment call as to what teams and by inference its players can do on their own and what the league/Stern should dictate;I for one feel Stern should have more of a hands off approach.
Players are adults and run/owned by adults;therefore I think there should be more autonomy in such things as dress codes and disciplining their players.
ps Whether you think it is wise or not for someone like Cuban to mouth off on occasion, I think it is his constitutional right to do so without penalty if he thinks it is justified.

[TwoTonTony]

Tony-I have to take exception to this statement:
I agree that the NBA has referess who make sure the stars get the calls and all games are close at the end.....Mark Cuban is right......And his freedom of speech was not effected.....he said it freely and now he has to deal with the repercussions.

If one is penalized by saying something(in this case a fine), then it is not freedom of speech;that is a contradiction. It is like saying that in an a country led by a dictator, a rebel has "freedom" to say what he wants even though he may very well be executed if he says it.

you can take exception all you want.....you do on everything anyways....what else is new......my view of freedom of speech is not being able to speak period....He is not being imprisioned for saying something is he??? No...He is being fined for saying it in the wrong forum to get maximum press coverage from it....and it backfired...period...he came off like a whining complaining spoiled brat and his coach echoed him......There is a time and a place to discuss grievances and i am sure it is spelled out in the handbook of the NBA....just like all companies have handbooks......

I know guys who own dunkin donuts and they are sooo pissed that the HQ is forcing them to open x amount of stores in supermarkets that are not profitable and more stores that are withing 1 mile of their other stores that will not justify the layout of capital......But if they do not...they will be fined and run the risk of losing the franchise....All of this is spelled out in the by-laws.....You can not benefit from the structure of the Franchise (parent company) or like the NBA and then go against its bylaws and expect no repercussions.......You are confusing an individual right with the right to express ones self at work.......

* go back and read my uniform analogy.....

He could have expressed this if he discussed it with the commissioner after the season or called him without penalty i am sure.....He was fined for undermining the credibility of the officiating and the league publicly.....Do not be stupid...He tried to do this for maxium effect and to garner public support for his cause and he reasoned in his mind that the 250K hit would be worth the benefit he would get from it....He is no dummy......

I am willing to bet you are a big supporter of the ACLU and was a guy who cried out loudly about the ABU Garib prisoners rights and how abomindable it was....But when 4 of our own were hanging from that bridge you did not garner the same anger.......You seem to be predictable and take the side of the Press on most issues......I expected you to be more of a free thinker....

[TwoTonTony]

Tony-You make some very good points which I cannot dispute.
I still think it comes down to a judgment call as to what teams and by inference its players can do on their own and what the league/Stern should dictate;I for one feel Stern should have more of a hands off approach.
Players are adults and run/owned by adults;therefore I think there should be more autonomy in such things as dress codes and disciplining their players.
ps Whether you think it is wise or not for someone like Cuban to mouth off on occasion, I think it is his constitutional right to do so without penalty if he thinks it is justified.

All the people in the professional world are professionals and adults and i would probably make a generalization a better quality of person than the average NBA guy, yet they are told what to wear....

Also when you are employed by somebody or are a franchisee you can not say anything you want....I could not tell a doctor anything i wanted without being fined.....I had to tow the company line...Did i like it?? No.....but i wanted my job....

[savage1]

I am not a big supporter of the ACLU but yes I was appalled by Abu Gharib, and come on, of course I was angered when our own people were hung ;two wrongs down't make a right.
Also, I don't seem your Dunkin Donut analogy the same way you do.
Dunkin Donut is an entity in itself whereas the NBA is composed of many teams, each competing with each other for revenues, etc.
Therefore, I have no problem with Dunkin Donut laying down the law so to speak with its franchises.
For the same reason I have no problem with Georgie telling his players that they must be clean shaven because he is the owner.
Stern is not the owner of anything;he is a Commissioner;thus it comes down to what his role is.
As stated, I think a lot of hissuspensions and fines are way out of proportion, that he oversteps his role as commssioner and that he LOVES being the center of attention(in maybe the way you describe Cuban).
ps If you respond, don't hold your breath waiting for a response as I am going to take my wife shopping.

[TwoTonTony]

I am not a big supporter of the ACLU but yes I was appalled by Abu Gharib, and come on, of course I was angered when our own people were hung ;two wrongs down't make a right.
Also, I don't seem your Dunkin Donut analogy the same way you do.
Dunkin Donut is an entity in itself whereas the NBA is composed of many teams, each competing with each other for revenues, etc.
Therefore, I have no problem with Dunkin Donut laying down the law so to speak with its franchises.
For the same reason I have no problem with Georgie telling his players that they must be clean shaven because he is the owner.
Stern is not the owner of anything;he is a Commissioner;thus it comes down to what his role is.
As stated, I think a lot of hissuspensions and fines are way out of proportion, that he oversteps his role as commssioner and that he LOVES being the center of attention(in maybe the way you describe Cuban).
ps If you respond, don't hold your breath waiting for a response as I am going to take my wife shopping.

savage...not holding my breath...i am off to the gym anyways.....Dunkin Donuts parent company is in the position that the NBA is.......Think about it...You do not think that each Dunkin Donuts is competing with the others and it angers franchisees when they allow another to be in close proximity......The NBA teams do not compete with each other for many revenues other than licsensed product and that is more about how each individual team is marketed and what type of team they put on the floor....

The point is that Stern (regardless of his arrogance which by the way is irrelevant) is basically the CEO of the NBA or Commissioner which is his title...He is no different than the CEO of Dunkin Donuts who determines how the company will grow just like Stern determines how the NBA will grow....Are you able to follow?? I know as a civil servant free enterprise can be tricky.....ha ha.....

Then the next layer is the owners of the franchisees...Each owner has laid out alot of money because he believes in the parent company (NBA/Dunkin Donuts) vision of growth and profitability.....Will they always agree? No, of course not...Especially when a franchisee sees that the parent company (NBA or Dunkin Donuts) is doing something that they determine is detrimental to their franchises best interest (bad calls or territory infringement in case of DD)......Now, if the DD franchisee went to the news and cried out that DD is practicing unfair tactics to prevent him from making money it may garner sympathy from the public, but it will virtually guarantee a fine from HQ....Simply because it is being aired in a forum that is detrimental to the vision and image of the Company as a whole....Whether it is the NBA or DD.....

That is why there is a very easy parallel to be drawn between the 2......Let me ask you 1 question.....If he called Stern and said, "Mr. Stern I think we need to get a committe to discuss the refereeing as it seems unjust....i have ex-nba refs who have gone over tapes.......I have talked to other owners who share my concern....lets get a committee and vote on changes".....i guarentee that he would not be fined......But he chose the public forum...almost an undertone that games are being unfairly altered by refs......ranting and raving...running on the court.......I am shocked you can not see that in this forum it would garner a fine...Like i said before i am sure there is a time and a place designated by the league for airing grievances.........But he chose this route i think to get public support against Stern and the league and to come off as a victim....However his gamble backfired....I think most of us saw the bad calls, but his and avery's crying during a series garnerd little sympathy....I can not imagine Vince Lombardi or the Mara's crying about calls....They simply overcome them by being up by a comfortable margin....and then it goes to the rules committee in the off-season.....

Have fun with the wife.......Maybe she can knock some sense into that commie pinko head of yours!!!