Freedom of Speech in Sports

[savage1]

Tony-I still think what the writer of the article I alluded to applies:
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.
As is the case in the private sector while I was working, I saw many people in my spcial service job SUCK their way up to the top by just playing along with the company policy and not saying the correct thing.
Some of us don't think that way and put principles over personal gain.
I don't personally care for Marc Cuban overall, but do admire the way he stands up to Stern and says the NBA officiating sucks.
I think Stern is just one big pompous self-serving ass with a swollen head who loves to show the world how powerful he is and whose penalties/suspensions are more a reflection of that than meting out just and fair penalties.
Even if one assumes that his motives are sincere(which obviously I do not), then it is obvious that he really has no idea of what is fair;just look at his absurd suspension for game 6 because someone hit Shaq too hard(like Shaq con't defend himself); he treats players like babies;he would make a heck of a lot better kindergarten teacher than Commissioner.
ps If having a commie pinko head means challenging authority at times rather than simply being a kissass and always saying the "correct" thing to keep you in your boss's good graces, then I am proud of it.

[TwoTonTony]

Tony-I still think what the writer of the article I alluded to applies:
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.
As is the case in the private sector while I was working, I saw many people in my spcial service job SUCK their way up to the top by just playing along with the company policy and not saying the correct thing.
Some of us don't think that way and put principles over personal gain.
I don't personally care for Marc Cuban overall, but do admire the way he stands up to Stern and says the NBA officiating sucks.
I think Stern is just one big pompous self-serving ass with a swollen head who loves to show the world how powerful he is and whose penalties/suspensions are more a reflection of that than meting out just and fair penalties.
Even if one assumes that his motives are sincere(which obviously I do not), then it is obvious that he really has no idea of what is fair;just look at his absurd suspension for game 6 because someone hit Shaq too hard(like Shaq con't defend himself); he treats players like babies;he would make a heck of a lot better kindergarten teacher than Commissioner.
ps If having a commie pinko head means challenging authority at times rather than simply being a kissass and always saying the "correct" thing to keep you in your boss's good graces, then I am proud of it.

i would like you to respond on the paralells of what i spelled out earlier...This has nothing to do with people kissing asses to get to the top...You are confusing the issues...You said it is freedom of speech and i said it is not because he is part of a greater whole (the league) and therefore he is suspended...I simply said if he wanted to say it he could to sterns face and not grandstand to the media outlets and throw tantrums...I am waiting for your response.....Why could he not simply state it to stern behind closed doors...I say he is grandstanding for effect


You are also letting your hard-on for Stern confuse and get you off the topic....He is not his boss per se....but he does head up the league and is more responsible for the leagues 20 yr growth than anybody....I think you are not correct by saying he puts himself first...I think he puts the growth of the league first and he is maybe arrrogant about it, which is irrelevant to his skills.....

I think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.....JMHO.....I still have not heard you address my question about the topic at hand...Freedom of speech in a work environment....or freedom of expression...I have given you countless examples...DD, yankees, ups and i have even spelled out the parallels, but like true savage form you ignore those points and continuosly repeat yourself...I would like for once for you to acknowledge the points i have made and either agree or rebut them......

You made comments how DD does not compete with each other and i say they do, actually more than NBA teams compete for the same revenue dollars, but i have heard nothing more from you on that....

You change the topic to people who are asskissers to get to the top.......Which really has nothing to do with freedom of speech....I never hold my tongue and have told bosses my feelings...but i have done it with tact and respect.....For this i have never been blackballed...In fact i was even respected more for being honest......I think it is many people whine and complain and do not know how to be upfront and honest without being abrasive and confrontational....

But besides that those are not freedom of speech issues...Those are work issues and conforming to corporate envirnoments and corporate culture......

You are a comical man...and oh so predictable!!!

[TwoTonTony]

Tony-I still think what the writer of the article I alluded to applies:
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.
As is the case in the private sector while I was working, I saw many people in my spcial service job SUCK their way up to the top by just playing along with the company policy and not saying the correct thing.
Some of us don't think that way and put principles over personal gain.
I don't personally care for Marc Cuban overall, but do admire the way he stands up to Stern and says the NBA officiating sucks.
I think Stern is just one big pompous self-serving ass with a swollen head who loves to show the world how powerful he is and whose penalties/suspensions are more a reflection of that than meting out just and fair penalties.
Even if one assumes that his motives are sincere(which obviously I do not), then it is obvious that he really has no idea of what is fair;just look at his absurd suspension for game 6 because someone hit Shaq too hard(like Shaq con't defend himself); he treats players like babies;he would make a heck of a lot better kindergarten teacher than Commissioner.
ps If having a commie pinko head means challenging authority at times rather than simply being a kissass and always saying the "correct" thing to keep you in your boss's good graces, then I am proud of it.

It is spelled out explicitely if you criticize the refs publicly you will be fined.....It is like that in many sports...The key here....is publicly.....Answer me this...What good can possibly come from mother fucking the officials publicly??? Are you expecting them to give you a make up call??? To fire up your team? To get public support on your side? Seriously, if for once you would ever answer 1 question i ask tell me...What advantage was it to cry publicly about it rather than talk to stern face to face or via telephone???

[savage1]

Hey Tony-I said earlier that I agreed with many of your points.
However, I still maintain that freedom of speech is freedom of speech with NO conditions attached to it.
You say that George Steinbrenner telling his players how they should dress and that they cannot have facial hair is the same as Stern setting the rules for all of the teams (dress codes);I don't agree with that and stand by my statement that it is up to the owners of the teams which employ the players to determine that.
Speaking of answering questions, YOU never answered this one satisfactorily, which was contained in the article:

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.
Regarding your DD analogy, I haven't read the bylaws of either DD or the NBA.
In any event,,even assuming you are right, there is a big difference between how/where DD expands to and an owner complaining about persons HIRED by the league who are in the former's mind doing a lousy job;he has a right to speak his mind and say what he wants PUBLICLY if he so chooses;I would do the same thing.
The fact that he has complained and been fined 13 times or so along with many other folks shows the issue is not that important to Stern and/or that he thinks that officiating is ok.
The asskissing I alluded to was NOT directed at you; while not freedom of speech in the purest sense of the world, asskissing is relevant because some people are compromising what they really think inside and NOT saying anything merely to climb the corporate ladder, knowing that if in fact they do speak out and criticize, they might be fired or at the very least will not advance;in this sense they are not exercising their freedom of speech because of the restrictions imposed on it;for some people that is all find and dandy, but as stated some of us including myself would not do that.
If you are of the philosophy that freedom of speech only applies in cerain instances which for the most place are not in the work place, so be it;I don't agree.
ps You talk about Cuban meeting with the Commissioner before going public;yeah, well I would like to see how much feedback DICTATOR Stern asks for from the teams/owners before imposing his dress codes suspensions, fines, etc. Oh wait a minute;he is GOD and knows what is best and fair for all OR is it to flaunt the power given to him by GOD!

[savage1]

It is spelled out explicitely if you criticize the refs publicly you will be fined.....It is like that in many sports...The key here....is publicly.....Answer me this...What good can possibly come from mother fucking the officials publicly??? Are you expecting them to give you a make up call??? To fire up your team? To get public support on your side? Seriously, if for once you would ever answer 1 question i ask tell me...What advantage was it to cry publicly about it rather than talk to stern face to face or via telephone???

We are not talking about what good it does;what good does it do to publicly criticize the President of the US publicly? Not much but many do it.
The issue is what one can say under the definition of fredom of speech;you want to restrict it to certain sectors;I do not.

[TwoTonTony]

We are not talking about what good it does;what good does it do to publicly criticize the President of the US publicly? Not much but many do it.
The issue is what one can say under the definition of fredom of speech;you want to restrict it to certain sectors;I do not.

dude....you still are not acknowledging any points of mine proving once again you are pompous....I do not want to stop anyone from speakign their mind...What you are suggesting is anarchy and would break down the company structure......I fully believe people can say what they want.....when they want...however, if done to hurt the greater good of the company or league...there will be a penalty.....I knew you would not answer the question i asked because you are so bent on being right all the time.....I will ask again??? why did he not bring this up man to man???

So you are saying at all companies any employee should be able to air his dirty laundry or what he perceives as injustices via the press with no repercussions.....So i as a drug rep should be able to go on eyewitness news and say "Merck Pharmaceuticals tells their employees to avoid questions when talking about cardiovascular events......This may be my voew but does not make it correct......I should expect to lose my job because of it......and rightly so....Why should my badmouthing the company effect other peoples jobs...it could due to bad press...again the FIRE analogy......harm to others by excercising free speech .If i have a gripe i should bring it up in the chain of command and bring it to managements attention to have it addressed.....Unless it is company wide and i am willing to be a whistleblower...Then and only then should this avenue be taken.....

Your way would cut down on any structure any company has and you would be fielding more frivilous gripes than you know what to do with......Again since you never read what i write i will say it again since you are very slow on the uptake......I DO NOT MIND PEOPLE SPEAKING THEIR MINDS>.....IT IS THE FORUM THAT IS CONSIDERED IN COMPANIES........On one hand you say you do not mind the yanks having no facial hair yet it bothers you if someone gets fined for braking the leagues rules on criticism of its officiating...You can not have it both ways since it is the same issue....Freedom of expression.....but there is a distinction..you want employees to be able to yell FIRE!!!! with no penalty......I think there is a right way to air your gripes.....But you have a HARD ON for stern and confuse the issues.....

Also do not paraphrase what i think, because you do not read what i write....either that or you can not read...same with when i acknowledged i was not a devout catholic....you kept on it for 2 more days.....and making assumptions about my women....on and on even after i clarified....

If you want to debate...fine, but be man enough to acknowledge peoples points and then countering instead of just continuosly ramming your one way opinions down peoples throats....I think that is why you are not very well liked....it is not the disagreeing...it is you never rebut...you just keep going, even when people have agreed with a point......

I really think that you believe you are superior to most......and your arrogance is apparent in the way you write.....

I do not expect a mature response just another paraphrase about how you are a champuion of the peoples rights and i believe in sequestering their right to speak....when in fact i have said plainly a million times.......their is a right way...and there is a destructive "FIRE" way...and i have given examples and analogies aplenty.....All you have given is irrelevant examples of people kissing ass to get ahead.....

And people should be able to criticize the president....because that is a public forum and he is a civil servant....It is not a private firm that is free to create its own rules and culture......


For such a smart man...you are pig headed!!

[savage1]

First of all, Cuban probably aired it publicly to let the rest of the country know how he felt about the officiating, which by many people's standards stinks and has stunk for years;if he felt that it would be more effective to do it thatt way, thats his perogative AND he is exercising HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!
And it is you who is not reading carefully, as I said that I agreed with some of your points.
You did not refute MY point about the fact that the officials are hired by the league and thus difference in the sense that they are not part of the "team" which applies to your corporate structure.
I think that if Cuban and many fans feel the officiating is bad and has been for years with favoritism(as stated in the article), then he has a perfect way to express his criticism any way in which he so chooses.
Lets see now-the fact that Bush is President is an elected official and that therefore criticism is ok, BUT Cuban should not speak out publicly simply because he is not a civil servant and by implication because he should be subservient to Stern, who is Commissioner of the NBA? ;hat makes no sense at all.
As stated, whether you agree or not, I believe there is a difference between Steinbrenner imposing his rules to his OWN team and Stern tyrannically deciding what by HIS standards how for example players/owners should dress and say.
Oh yes, before you start calling people names like you choose to do, just look over the last week as to who has tried to bait me in other threads with childish "signed by savage1.It is you, my friend.
I have tried to keep things peaceful and have tried to keep away from politics, but have during the last few weeks been respectful of you(although I do think you are all wet about many things.
Lets see-so far tonight-you have called me a pinko commie, pompous, comical and pig headed.
Obviously, you need to resort to these to try to add to your arguments, as deep down inside you don't believe they can stand on their own.
Could this be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[BettorsChat]

If I was making the money they made I wouldn't have a problem staying in line with the rules of the boss that signed my check.

[TwoTonTony]

First of all, Cuban probably aired it publicly to let the rest of the country know how he felt about the officiating, which by many people's standards stinks and has stunk for years;if he felt that it would be more effective to do it thatt way, thats his perogative AND he is exercising HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!
And it is you who is not reading carefully, as I said that I agreed with some of your points.
You did not refute MY point about the fact that the officials are hired by the league and thus difference in the sense that they are not part of the "team" which applies to your corporate structure.
I think that if Cuban and many fans feel the officiating is bad and has been for years with favoritism(as stated in the article), then he has a perfect way to express his criticism any way in which he so chooses.
Lets see now-the fact that Bush is President is an elected official and that therefore criticism is ok, BUT Cuban should not speak out publicly simply because he is not a civil servant and by implication because he should be subservient to Stern, who is Commissioner of the NBA? ;hat makes no sense at all.
As stated, whether you agree or not, I believe there is a difference between Steinbrenner imposing his rules to his OWN team and Stern tyrannically deciding what by HIS standards how for example players/owners should dress and say.
Oh yes, before you start calling people names like you choose to do, just look over the last week as to who has tried to bait me in other threads with childish "signed by savage1.It is you, my friend.
I have tried to keep things peaceful and have tried to keep away from politics, but have during the last few weeks been respectful of you(although I do think you are all wet about many things.
Lets see-so far tonight-you have called me a pinko commie, pompous, comical and pig headed.
Obviously, you need to resort to these to try to add to your arguments, as deep down inside you don't believe they can stand on their own.
Could this be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

the refs may be employed by the league but they are part of a union....and by the way i have acknowledged there is a problem......I never said criticism is not warranted.....Nor did i say it was okay for it against bush but not against the league.....There is no chance for change if there is no dialogue.....yet you still will not acknowledge the fact it could be construed destructive by going public with "freedom of speech"...I say if something needs to be said it needs to be said within the confines of the rules laid out in the corporate doctrine....Thats all....You are taking this too far....What other sport or business do people spout off on the spur of the moment like cuban.....He is like a big frat boy.....Like i said and since it generally takes you about 100 times to get it....I do not care if he says things....but under the bylaws of the NBA he will be penalized......I think he is very good for the league overall and he has made progress with changes, but i doubt the change has come about from his public rantings...

Also whatever all wet means i do not know....As far as name calling.....It was done tongue in cheek on every occasion.....Note on some ha ha afterwards......You make yourself out to be this holier than thou figure.......Other people do it all the time with the signature thing....It is meant in fun......Do not start being a thin skinned pussy on top of a whiner.....Then you are just a plain girl.....Boo hoo savage is going to take his ball and go home.....whatever dude!!
I believe my arguments can stand on their own, but it is funny to debate someone who does not debate, but rams his thughts down everyones throats and general summary of the oppositions stance is not even close.....I have acknowledged many points and am very anti-censor and pro free speech....I just do not think this is the issue here......I think you are reaching......and i think you love to stir the pot....Funny thing is i enjoy refuting , whereas many here probably think it is a waste of time...But i am stuck here packing for the next 3 days so i have a little time....

[TwoTonTony]

i think another freedom of speech issue you may want to address is the Knicks witholding of $40 million from brown for violating his contract and conducting "roadside interviews"....MSG's policy is that any interview given must have an MSG public relations official present......

i will be interested to see how this plays out.....maybe you can settle it for us savage??

on one hand he signed the contract and agreed to the terms, but i do not believe they will win this fight....

[savage1]

Let me address one thing at a time:first of all, your remarks may have been tongue-in-cheek but I think ill timed.
As stated before my topics during the last few weeks have been chosen to invite intelligent discussion rather than the unfortunate bitterness, anger and namecalling we saw during the previous political discussions and about women.
I accepted it for the most part until last night;is calling someone a pinko commie as you did supposed to be tongue-in-cheek also or implying that I felt worse about Abu Gharib than our own soldiers being hung or that I was a big ACLU supporter, which I am not?
To change back to the topic of free speech in sports, I just want to again refer back to the article which I think was very well written:

"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."

My comment is that I obviously agree, and that this problem as perceived by Cuban and many fans has gone on for too many years and is beyond the stage of quiet meetings with Stern.
Again, referring back to the article:

"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."

Leaving aside Stern's ego issue for a moment, which is subjective, he (Stern) wants the league to be profitable as (using your thinking) would any business.
However, when many feel including Cuban that the integrity of the game itself is being compromised by its officials and Stern(with his suspensions, etc.) for tv ratings, revenues, etc.,etc. than by my way of thinking it is not a game anymore in the purest sense-it is more of the ends justify the means.
Sure the NBA rules say one cannot criticize the officials, but there is no rule which says that a $250000 fine is the answer.
Many consider that as I do that Stern in essence saying "Shut up-those are the rules, and if you don't like them, don't be an owner of an NBA team."
If manner in which NBA games are called by officials have not changed for many years while Stern has been the commissioner and it is perceived by many,many people as a problem, then I see no problem with Cuban openly challenging the commissioner and the league.
Somehow the analogies of Dunkin Donuts and Pharmaceuticals sto the NBA don't feel right.
In the former instances you are talking about trying to market certain tangible products for the best economic return.
In the NBA you are talking about economic return, true, but more importantly you are talking about the intangible pleasure fans get from seeing their own particular team win;we are talking about the outcome of individual games here, the number of times teams will win and lose during the season, making the playoffs, the outcome of game during the playoffs and on and on and on.
Thus, I would think that the ones who can control the games played(the officials) are quite important in the overall scheme of things.
Accordingly,when someone like Cuban comes around and bitches publicly about what he sees as injustices generally and in specific instances, I think it is a good thing, as it brings the problem to the forefront.
Yes you can say he is breaking the rules and Stern can try to silence him with $250000 fines, but sometimes when something is way out of line, one has to stand up for what he thinks is right and say so.(again freedom of speech).
Perhaps some day, if there is enough public outcry, Stern or whoever is commissioner, might just take a careful look at what folks are saying about the games and do something about it!
Re:Knicks and Brown, my only comment for now without knowig all of the facts is that Brown was a direct employee of the team, and they have a right to do what they think is appropriate.

[TwoTonTony]

Let me address one thing at a time:first of all, your remarks may have been tongue-in-cheek but I think ill timed.
As stated before my topics during the last few weeks have been chosen to invite intelligent discussion rather than the unfortunate bitterness, anger and namecalling we saw during the previous political discussions and about women.
I accepted it for the most part until last night;is calling someone a pinko commie as you did supposed to be tongue-in-cheek also or implying that I felt worse about Abu Gharib than our own soldiers being hung or that I was a big ACLU supporter, which I am not?
To change back to the topic of free speech in sports, I just want to again refer back to the article which I think was very well written:

"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."

My comment is that I obviously agree, and that this problem as perceived by Cuban and many fans has gone on for too many years and is beyond the stage of quiet meetings with Stern.
Again, referring back to the article:

"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."

Leaving aside Stern's ego issue for a moment, which is subjective, he (Stern) wants the league to be profitable as (using your thinking) would any business.
However, when many feel including Cuban that the integrity of the game itself is being compromised by its officials and Stern(with his suspensions, etc.) for tv ratings, revenues, etc.,etc. than by my way of thinking it is not a game anymore in the purest sense-it is more of the ends justify the means.
Sure the NBA rules say one cannot criticize the officials, but there is no rule which says that a $250000 fine is the answer.
Many consider that as I do that Stern in essence saying "Shut up-those are the rules, and if you don't like them, don't be an owner of an NBA team."
If manner in which NBA games are called by officials have not changed for many years while Stern has been the commissioner and it is perceived by many,many people as a problem, then I see no problem with Cuban openly challenging the commissioner and the league.
Somehow the analogies of Dunkin Donuts and Pharmaceuticals sto the NBA don't feel right.
In the former instances you are talking about trying to market certain tangible products for the best economic return.
In the NBA you are talking about economic return, true, but more importantly you are talking about the intangible pleasure fans get from seeing their own particular team win;we are talking about the outcome of individual games here, the number of times teams will win and lose during the season, making the playoffs, the outcome of game during the playoffs and on and on and on.
Thus, I would think that the ones who can control the games played(the officials) are quite important in the overall scheme of things.
Accordingly,when someone like Cuban comes around and bitches publicly about what he sees as injustices generally and in specific instances, I think it is a good thing, as it brings the problem to the forefront.
Yes you can say he is breaking the rules and Stern can try to silence him with $250000 fines, but sometimes when something is way out of line, one has to stand up for what he thinks is right and say so.(again freedom of speech).
Perhaps some day, if there is enough public outcry, Stern or whoever is commissioner, might just take a careful look at what folks are saying about the games and do something about it!
Re:Knicks and Brown, my only comment for now without knowig all of the facts is that Brown was a direct employee of the team, and they have a right to do what they think is appropriate.

i hate the NBA for those same reasons....I think you only need to turn the Tv on the last 2 minutes...stars get prefeerential treatment and so on....But it is a business directed by the CEO who creates the rules........hence the business parallels....It is not freedom of speech in private business, due to the fact it has the potential to undermine the reputation of the business/game....Anyways that is the law portion of it....

The practical side says that until enough people are pissed about this and revenues are effected it will remain as it is.....Maybe Cuban's tactics will bring enough attention to the injustices of theNBA....who knows....But it is not a 1st amendment issue....Just because someone has to stand up for something is not the prerequisite for 1st amendment infringement....It is under what part of society it is done under....If it were that simple nobody would be fired from their jobs for airing their grievances they are so "passionate about"...Some hungry lawyer would have taken up their case to the Supreme Court because the 1st amendment rights had been violated....But the fact is you rarely see that because it is not so.....Do you not think that Cuban would be suing the NBA for this as well if he thought it had merit??? I am sure he and his team of lawyers are probably a little smarter than us....well me anyways....i know you fancy yourself a genius...(here it is HA HA!!!! did you see it savage ...a joke?)...

And to say my analogies do not feel right is not a good defense....Just alert me to where the parallels fall short.....Feelings are for girls....facts rule the day.....

The only different variables are that the NBA has officials, but DD also has lawyers, PR people to make sure their people stay within the confines of the corporate edict.....

My point with Steinbrenner is why can he tell his players how to be seen....he is the owner of the team and i understand that which you stated....

Mr. Stern is not the owner of the NBA, but he is the Commissioner who is appointed to act as the HEad of the league as its voice......So where is the difference????

When I worked in pharma the CEO did not own the company, but was appointed by the board....yet that did not diminish his power in any capacity....

Anyways, relax and do not let your blood pressure get high about this....I agree with many of your points on the NBA, but i do not share your view that this is a 1st amendment issue....

Is that civil enough debate for ya Pal???? I also do not appreciate being called a wetback....

[savage1]

i hate the NBA for those same reasons....I think you only need to turn the Tv on the last 2 minutes...stars get prefeerential treatment and so on....But it is a business directed by the CEO who creates the rules........hence the business parallels....It is not freedom of speech in private business, due to the fact it has the potential to undermine the reputation of the business/game....Anyways that is the law portion of it....

The practical side says that until enough people are pissed about this and revenues are effected it will remain as it is.....Maybe Cuban's tactics will bring enough attention to the injustices of theNBA....who knows....But it is not a 1st amendment issue....Just because someone has to stand up for something is not the prerequisite for 1st amendment infringement....It is under what part of society it is done under....If it were that simple nobody would be fired from their jobs for airing their grievances they are so "passionate about"...Some hungry lawyer would have taken up their case to the Supreme Court because the 1st amendment rights had been violated....But the fact is you rarely see that because it is not so.....Do you not think that Cuban would be suing the NBA for this as well if he thought it had merit??? I am sure he and his team of lawyers are probably a little smarter than us....well me anyways....i know you fancy yourself a genius...(here it is HA HA!!!! did you see it savage ...a joke?)...

And to say my analogies do not feel right is not a good defense....Just alert me to where the parallels fall short.....Feelings are for girls....facts rule the day.....

The only different variables are that the NBA has officials, but DD also has lawyers, PR people to make sure their people stay within the confines of the corporate edict.....

My point with Steinbrenner is why can he tell his players how to be seen....he is the owner of the team and i understand that which you stated....

Mr. Stern is not the owner of the NBA, but he is the Commissioner who is appointed to act as the HEad of the league as its voice......So where is the difference????

When I worked in pharma the CEO did not own the company, but was appointed by the board....yet that did not diminish his power in any capacity....

Anyways, relax and do not let your blood pressure get high about this....I agree with many of your points on the NBA, but i do not share your view that this is a 1st amendment issue....


Is that civil enough debate for ya Pal???? I also do not appreciate being called a wetback....

Yes- the response was civil, and I appreciate it.
And also let me say that the reason I cut out the discussions about Bush and those which led to such animosity and in its place started some other non confrontational topics simply to try to turn things around.
Yes I will admit that I have some VERY strong opinions about politics but decided that it was best for the well being of all including myself to keep away from expressing them.
I think in all fairness that one of the reasons I myself chose a civil service career rather than a corporate one was simply because I viewed many who chose the latter route as ones persons who would sacrifice their own personal values and beliefs for the good of the company if they differed greatly.
On the other hand, as you well know, government employees are protected by the civil service laws.
If one passes the test and gets a good mark, and then does his job in a satisfactory manner, there is very little which can be done if he speaks out of turn so to speak.
Here is a little story which is off topic and yet is important because it shows my mindset.
To this day, I still remember the instance which occurred many years ago in the office in which I worked:
There was an old, nasty lady supervisor(not mine-she actually worked in a different divison than I) who felt that because she had been there so many years, that she could order anyone around.
Well anyways in order to get to the waiting room to see clients, she had decided that there were certain doors leading there that only HER workers could use because the particular door in questions happened to be near her workers.
Other workers were expected to use other doors to get into the waiting room.
Well anyways, one day I happened to be in "her" section and was notified that someone was waiting to see me.
Well, I decided that it made no sense for me to have to take an indirect route to see my client, and I simply went through "her" doors to see the client.
Afterwards, she told me I had no right to use the doors,as they were designed for "her" people.
I promptly told her that she, although a supervisor, was nothing more than an state employee like me and that she didn't own the building. I then walked away.
The funny thing is that afterwards while she continued to try to push other people away, she kept her distance from me.
She may have even reported what I did to someone higher, but having been there myself for a long time, I knew they couldn't do anything.
Sorry for the digression, but to this day I am glad I put the old bitch in her place, and it shows you why I personally chose the type of career I had rather than a corporate one.
I am sure in the above instance, if I were a corporate employee and had done the same, i would have been suspended or fired.
Anyways, ok, I agree that we disagree about where the line should be drawn with the First Amendment;you make some very good points.
Perhaps if I had chosen a corporate lifestyle, I might think differently.

[TwoTonTony]

savage-

i am not of a corporate mindset at all....i have been a business owner for almost 17 yrs total in 1 capacity or another...It is only after i sold my stores to the President of Foxwoods...Mr. Sherlock did i decide to seek employment and do what i loved to do best...meet people and sell.....

I worked for the 57th largest company in the world and was a top producer.....Each and everyday went against everything i believed in....So i am back in business......I am very opinionated and like things done my way....In the corporate world it takes forever to make decisions and that is not what i do....I am decisive and like to take action...Anyways, the corporate world in no way ever shaped my belief system....I am merely being observant of how the system works...Not saying whether i buy into it or not....just explaining why it was designed that way....

[wayne1218]

You two just need to get a Room!