15 Yard Penalty For Using The N-word On The Field?

[Boffo97]

Time to watch the Supreme Court scenes in the movie "The People v Larry Flynt". The NFL (and powerful forces) are tying to regulate decency, and that's always a horrible idea.

and as Flynt showed, we never gave the gov't said power, even though they try to usurp their powers all the time and conviince the public that our freedoms are somehow limited.

The main difference though is that this is not the government. This is a private employer regulating workplace conduct. I can guarantee that if I went dropping N bombs at my job, I'd be facing a lot worse than a 15 yard penalty.

Plus, even if this was a 1st Amendment issue (it's not, for multiple reasons), one will have a tough (but historically not impossible) road convincing a judge that a racial slur is constitutionally protected speech. I'd label it as "fighting words" myself.

 

[Stranger]

The main difference though is that this is not the government. This is a private employer regulating workplace conduct. I can guarantee that if I went dropping N bombs at my job, I'd be facing a lot worse than a 15 yard penalty.

Plus, even if this was a 1st Amendment issue (it's not, for multiple reasons), one will have a tough (but historically not impossible) road convincing a judge that a racial slur is constitutionally protected speech. I'd label it as "fighting words" myself.

i understand that this is a private relationship, but one that is highly visible in the public domain, and therefore socially impactful.

"constitutionally protected speech" is a media manufactured concept that has no basis in law. The Constitution enumerates gov't power, it does not regulate or empower personal liberties. this is perhaps one of the most egregious twists of understanding ever perpetrated on a public.

 

[Thordaddy]

Time to watch the Supreme Court scenes in the movie "The People v Larry Flynt". The NFL (and powerful forces) are tying to regulate decency, and that's always a horrible idea.

and as Flynt showed, we never gave the gov't said power, even though they try to usurp their powers all the time and conviince the public that our freedoms are somehow limited.

Actually I've watched it a few times, and FWIW trying to equate a sports league to government censorship is a stretch IMO, ya think a checker at WalMart aught to be able to tell a customer to go fuck themselves?
We're talking private enterprise here when the government decides to try to make the f-word or the n-word illegal,I'll be witcha , but right now IMO if they are going to clean up the language in the game and it helps to reverse the coarsening of this society ,I'm all for it.

 

[Thordaddy]

i understand that this is a private relationship, but one that is highly visible in the public domain, and therefore socially impactful.

"constitutionally protected speech" is a media manufactured concept that has no basis in law. The Constitution enumerates gov't power, it does not regulate or empower personal liberties. this is perhaps one of the most egregious twists of understanding ever perpetrated on a public.

Text of the first Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That aint no media manufactured concept thems da words Stranger

 

[RamFan503]

i understand that this is a private relationship, but one that is highly visible in the public domain, and therefore socially impactful.

"constitutionally protected speech" is a media manufactured concept that has no basis in law. The Constitution enumerates gov't power, it does not regulate or empower personal liberties. this is perhaps one of the most egregious twists of understanding ever perpetrated on a public.

Huh? OK - I'll bite. Where are you possibly getting this?

I'll agree with the idea that a public interest may be there regarding the NFL but that is a bit of a stretch in itself. However, the media manufactured the concept of Constitutionally protected speech? The media may hide behind it in some questionable situations but...

 

[RamsSince1969]

Get that word out of here period. Sounds good to me. Anyone with even a couple of brain cells who can attend a sensitivity training class will be able to see what is alright to say at work and what isn't right to say at work. I don't care if it's a bro battlefield word, say the f word if you have to but leave that word in the garbage can where it belongs. We couldn't even tell a slightly dirty joke in the corporate company because if it offended anyone, you were fired immediately and most likely sued as well as the company. It happened. How does that word is ever said, for any reason is beyond me. Blows my mind.

 

[Stranger]

Actually I've watched it a few times, and FWIW trying to equate a sports league to government censorship is a stretch IMO, ya think a checker at WalMart aught to be able to tell a customer to go freak themselves?
We're talking private enterprise here when the government decides to try to make the f-word or the n-word illegal,I'll be witcha , but right now IMO if they are going to clean up the language in the game and it helps to reverse the coarsening of this society ,I'm all for it.

actually, it's not. who do u think gives the owners the power to incorporate and to be protected from private liability - the state. so, the state is not some innocent unconnected participant.

 

[Stranger]

Huh? OK - I'll bite. Where are you possibly getting this?

I'll agree with the idea that a public interest may be there regarding the NFL but that is a bit of a stretch in itself. However, the media manufactured the concept of Constitutionally protected speech? The media may hide behind it in some questionable situations but...

thee constitution enumerates powers (for a gov't), it doesn't constrain sovereign individuals or grant the public rights. well, except Lincoln screwed it all up with the 15th amendment. but I am not talking about that.

bottom line, the state was never given explicit power to say anything about individual speech. just because the public can't keep the gov't inline, or by extension public instruments such as corporations, is an entirely different matter.

 

[Stranger]

Get that word out of here period. Sounds good to me. Anyone with even a couple of brain cells who can attend a sensitivity training class will be able to see what is alright to say at work and what isn't right to say at work. I don't care if it's a bro battlefield word, say the f word if you have to but leave that word in the garbage can where it belongs. We couldn't even tell a slightly dirty joke in the corporate company because if it offended anyone, you were fired immediately and most likely sued as well as the company. It happened. How does that word is ever said, for any reason is beyond me. Blows my mind.

In his movie Banana, Woody Allen captured the insanity perfectly in his 1st speech after becoming president.

 

[Stranger]

Text of the first Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That aint no media manufactured concept thems da words Stranger

Post the words from the DOI, that's what applies.

 

[Boffo97]

thee constitution enumerates powers (for a gov't), it doesn't constrain sovereign individuals or grant the public rights. well, except Lincoln screwed it all up with the 15th amendment. but I am not talking about that.

bottom line, the state was never given explicit power to say anything about individual speech. just because the public can't keep the gov't inline, or by extension public instruments such as corporations, is an entirely different matter.

The courts have the power to interpret the Constitution (although one can argue that's not implicit in the Constitution but simply claimed under Marbury v. Madison, but it's still got a long enough history without much challenge that it's part of American legal tradition). One of those powers is to determine just what constitutes speech by the Founding Fathers' intentions. To me, it's pretty obvious that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect one's right to spread actual ideas. Things that have been found as not being Constitutionally protected speech have no ideas behind them, such as falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or "Fighting Words". You could even argue that threatening to kill the President contains an idea (intense dislike/criticism of that President) but that's not protected either.

So, I'd argue, no, it's not a creation of the media. It's a creation of the courts.

But this debate really isn't relevant to the idea at hand, that being that a private employer (even one whose employees work in the public limelight) has every right to regulate workplace conduct, and even conduct outside the workplace. Nearly every endorsement contract out there features a "morals clause" which says if the endorser does anything to ruin his image, the company can pull out of the contract.

 

[Thordaddy]

Post the words from the DOI, that's what applies.

You just went from the constitution to the DOI, so where's the LACK of a constitutional protection of free speech,this ""constitutionally protected speech" is a media manufactured concept that has no basis in law" statement coming from.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Lame

 

[Stranger]

You just went from the constitution to the DOI, so where's the LACK of a constitutional protection of free speech,this ""constitutionally protected speech" is a media manufactured concept that has no basis in law" statement coming from.

it's about jurisdiction. The media is conflating jurisdiction, convincing the people that their free speech emanates from the Constitution. But it doesn't, its inalienable and can't be usurped, even voluntarily. People therefor think their liberties are hanging by the threads of a paper document now administered by politicians. It lowers the barrier of infringement.

 

[Stranger]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ney-wanted-the-n-word-out-of-our-locker-room/

Ryan Clark: Rooney wanted the N-word out of our locker room
Posted by Michael David Smith on February 23, 2014

The NFL is considering throwing penalty flags on players who use the N-word on the field. At least one team owner is also telling players he doesn’t want them using the N-word at the team facility.

Steelers safety Ryan Clark said on ESPN on Sunday that Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney made it known last season that he didn’t want to hear the N-word in the locker room, either spoken by members of the team or in music played in the locker room.

“Mr. Rooney actually talked to Ike Taylor about it this season. Ike and Mr. Rooney have a very good relationship,” Clark said. “He told Ike, ‘I don’t want you guys using that word.’”

Although in some cases it might not seem like a white man’s place to tell a mostly black group of men not to use the N-word, Clark said that there’s so much respect among the players for Rooney, a former U.S. ambassador to Ireland whose commitment to diversity is reflected in the Rooney Rule that bears his name, that Clark said the black players on the team were willing to comply.

“Ike went around to specific people and said, ‘Listen, this is what Mr. Rooney told me.’ He’s the ambassador. We call him Old Man Rooney. He has a lot of respect, and because of the way he has treated us as players, as black athletes, also treated Coach Tomlin as a black coach, you know it’s coming from a place of love,” Clark said.

However, Clark said that while players initially respected Rooney’s request, it didn’t last.

“You stopped hearing it immediately that day,” Clark said. “But after a while it came back because it’s the culture. After a while it comes back because this is what these guys have grown up with.”

If the NFL is serious about stopping players from using the N-word, the league may find exactly what Clark described: It sounds like a good idea in theory, but it’s easier said than done.

But Rooney has his grand children flashing their bodies on TV & movies.

 

[Thordaddy]

it's about jurisdiction. The media is conflating jurisdiction, convincing the people that their free speech emanates from the Constitution. But it doesn't, its inalienable and can't be usurped, even voluntarily. People therefor think their liberties are hanging by the threads of a paper document now administered by politicians. It lowers the barrier of infringement.

Yeah I get that,and have made that point often, you have all these rights without a government , it's a conceptual difference some don't get ,the constitution CHARGES the government to respect and protect those rights.
But again THIS isn't a case of infringement upon God given rights that Walters friends died face down in the mud to protect