Conference hbahba::cam_sports

    Pete,
    
    You should take it beyond just the sports arena. For example an
    employee of DEC who made such comments would in all likelihood not be
    lookedupon faavrorably.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    TCM,
    
    Had to keep it sports-related, didn't I 8^).  But, you're right.  There
    are parallels with other businesses.  It's just that sports are high-
    profile, and what's said by athletes, coaches, GMs and owners end up in
    the paper, and what a DEC employee says usually doesn't.  And, Marge
    Schott is the owner of a private business.  Private business owners in
    the US don't have to answer to anyone (as opposed to executives of 
    publicly held corporations).
    
    I've read a few columns where the question of free speech has been
    asked.
    
    When the Nazis come to town, the ACLU will support them in court.  Even
    though their views are anathma to most, I think the ACLU is right to
    support their right to express their views.
    
    When Marge Schott was getting into trouble, where was the ACLU?  
    
    Again, I don't want to get into the legalities, just the morality, for
    lack of a better word.
    
    My opinion is that even the ugliest, most hateful views should be
    allowed to be aired.  And, they should be mercilessly criticized in
    public.  
    
    Pete

    
    "Free speech" is only the tip of the iceberg.  Players are suspended
    under the presumption of guilt for using drugs or gambling.  Owners 
    and players have been suspended without due process for their personal 
    associations and dealings, without so much as a shred of evidence of 
    any criminal wrongdoing (George Steinbrenner, the Portland
    Trailblazers, etc.).  Back in the not-so-olden days before there 
    were players' unions, some baseball players were even blackballed 
    simply for signing contracts with rival leagues.  All of which in its 
    time (including right up through today) was accepted under the weight 
    of public opinion.
    
    I see nothing different or special about free speech rights.  It seems
    to me that free speech is sacred but other constitutionally-protected
    rights aren't.  If a person can't be disciplined by a league because of
    what he or she says however damaging it may be to the league, then
    they shouldn't be disciplined for whatever else might be going on in
    their private lives (inside of a criminal conviction).  Most people,
    even free-speech advocates, aren't willing to accept that standard.  I
    tend to believe that sports leagues should be able to, under reasonable 
    grounds and within some kind of impartial appeal process, discipline 
    employees based on their conduct, speech included.
    
    glenn
     
    

    The Constitution governs what the Government can and can't do.  It says
    nothing about what business can and can't do.
    
    Free Speech isn't as black and white as some people like to believe,
    even under the Constitution.  Try yelling "Fire" the next time you go
    to the movies.

    
    Hmmmm, lets take this even one step further...how about the home....?
    Are we able to even have free speech at our own house?  Lets say your
    wife makes you this slop and you tell her so....will there be something
    held against you?  I think so.  This is normal.  The best thing to do
    is shut up and be quiet.  Keep your thoughts to yourself and you won't
    have to deal with the wrath that may come down on you.
    
    I think what was done to Marge was wrong.....however, when it comes to
    a player telling off an official in words that can't be written here...
    he should be suspended.  That is against the rules.
    
    
    	Hal

    >> And, Marge Schott is the owner of a private business. Private 
    >> business owners in the US don't have to answer to anyone (as 
    >> opposed to executives of publicly held corporations).
    
       Private businesses are not fiefdoms immune to the laws and mores
       of the larger society. If a private businessman were to publicly
       express the same views Margie did and have the same horrendous
       minority hiring record chances are they would not go unscathed.
       Besides baseball is a *very* public business and that is pretty
       much the whole point.
    
    >> When Marge Schott was getting into trouble, where was the ACLU?  
    
       Was Marge Schott even taking a Freedom Of Speech stand? I don't think
       so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was her contention that she never
       said the things attributed to her and when it was proven that she did 
       she denied malicious intent. Nazis don't generally operate that way.
       I seriously doubt Marge wanted to defend her right to say "kikes", 
       "spics" and "niggers", but I could be wrong.

    >> My opinion is that even the ugliest, most hateful views should be
    >> allowed to be aired.  And, they should be mercilessly criticized in
    >> public.  
    
       Major League baseball does not and can not operate this way. You
       think they want Joe Pickynose being interviewed in the dugout after
       a game going, "Yup, 3 for 4 today and now I'm gonna go see if I can 
       do as well with the broads. Of course, if I was hung like these black
       guys I'd have no problem." Probably not.
    

    Mac, the government regulates what business can and can't do regularly.
    Even if a business wanted to, it couldn't implement policies which
    legitimized age discrimination, for example.
    
    Your point is valid, but I didn't want to get into a legal rathole.
    
    Something else very bothersome about the Schott situation is that her
    fate was in the hands of people who have a vested interest in seeing
    her dealt with harshly: rival teams' owners.  
    
    Hal, I'd disagree about the ref criticizing.  I certainly don't think
    technical fouls should be appealed to the Supreme Court, but I don't
    think a player should be fined for saying the reffing was terrible
    during a post-game interview.
    
    Pete

    
  >> Something else very bothersome about the Schott situation is that her
  >> fate was in the hands of people who have a vested interest in seeing
  >> her dealt with harshly: rival teams' owners.  
    
     The owners were handling it in lieu of a commissioner. Besides, do you
     really think any competitive edge was gained by suspending Schott?

�    Mac, the government regulates what business can and can't do regularly.
    
    Yes, but few of those regulations are contained in the Constitution.    
    
�    Hal, I'd disagree about the ref criticizing.  I certainly don't think
�    technical fouls should be appealed to the Supreme Court, but I don't
�    think a player should be fined for saying the reffing was terrible
�    during a post-game interview.
    
    You don't think a sport should discipline an employee for being
    unsportsmanlike?

    Like I said before, even the Free Speech amendment is not as black and
    white as some people like to believe.  Free Speech is protected,
    provided it does not infringe on the rights of others.  A person who
    uses their position in society to make inappropriate remarks has enough
    power to be infringing on others' rights.

Well, once you start talking about businesses, you're really getting into
a hazy area.

Say we have Customer A, who spends a LOT of money on our products, and
they are one of our MAJOR customers.

Now say I start exercising my free speech rights, and start telling
everyone I know that Customer A is a terrible firm, that what they do 
with the product they produce is kill and torture babies and small
furry animals.  I may be telling the truth, and exercising my right
to free speech, but how long is my company going to keep me gainfully
employeed if I speak like that.


So you see, I cannot exercise my right of free speech if it starts
damaging my company's business.


I'll bet if it went to court, my company would be perfectly justified
in firing me, because my free speech was damaging their business.


Just something to think about.....

'Saw

    >>The owners were handling it in lieu of a commissioner. Besides, do you
    >>really think any competitive edge was gained by suspending Schott?
    
    Probably not, but it's still the *appearance* of a conflict of
    interest.  Should DEC, IBM, Borland and Lotus decide the outcome
    of the FTC investigation of Microsoft?  This type of situation is
    why the commissioner's office should be filled.  
    
    >>provided it does not infringe on the rights of others.  A person who
    >>uses their position in society to make inappropriate remarks has enough
    >>power to be infringing on others' rights.
    
    Mac, I guess I see these things as a foot-in-the-door for those with
    ulterior motives.  Your "inappropriate remarks" line reminds me of the
    current disturbing trend on college campuses to lump "inappropriate
    laughter", "unwanted staring", etc. in with racist remarks.  I think
    that colleges and universities have gone way too far in censoring 
    people, and I feel that once it becomes accepted in colleges, it may
    make its way to society at large, including sports (to keep it sports
    related 8^).)  
    
    I'll concede that baseball's treatment of Schott was acceptable, both 
    legally and morally.  But, I think restricting free speech has the
    potential for abuse by the legions of people out there with a view
    of what constitutes a "correct" society.
    
    Pete   

    
    Torturing small furry animals??????
    
    Killing babies????
    
    That's not right, doncha know.
    
    I think we should picket that company to let them know we don't agree
    with that kind of behavior!
    
    I remain,
    the first to speak my mind!
    Kev
    

�Your "inappropriate remarks" line reminds me of the
�    current disturbing trend on college campuses to lump "inappropriate
�    laughter", "unwanted staring", etc. in with racist remarks.  I think
�    that colleges and universities have gone way too far in censoring 
�    people, 
    
    Well, I was trying to be general.
    
    What's this about a trend in college campuses.  I haven't heard about
    it.  You mean they are getting out of the 60's mentality?

>This certainly wouldn't be free either.  You'd be hit with a libel/slander
>suit faster than you'd be fired.  

I'm not sure, but I think for something to be slanderous, it has to be
untrue.  I said about that it was TRUE.

Libel has a little more leeway -- something that unjustly damages a
person's reputation.  It could still be true, but be considered
an unjust damage.

You're probably right....8^)



>Watch channel 7 at 6 tonight.  Racism and your kids.  "Bigotry is our legacy
>to our kids."

Kind of like a billboard I saw:

		Babies are not born knowing how to hate.


'Saw
    

     
   >> Torturing small furry animals??????
    
   >> Killing babies????
    
   >> That's not right, doncha know.
    
      That's another thing I like about you, Kev. You're not afraid to 
      be controversial.    
    

    The ACLU:
    
    - they're against everything America stands for
    - they're not civil
    - they try to take away your liberty
    - they will destroy the union

    Mike, I disagree 100%.  But, if you were talking about the Eagle
    Forum, or the Moral Majority, I'd agree.  
    
    Awaiting deletion of our notes,
    Pete

Pete -

Of course, Mike's ACLU stands for "American Christian League of the
Uninformed"

The only speech that is correct is White, Surburban, Conservative
Christian.  All else is wrong.  


But on the topic.  When one becomes a public figure, one sort
of throws away some rights to privacy.   

    Ha, ha, JD.  Touche.
    
    Good points by many in here.
    
    Mac, you've heard of the Politically Correct movement on college
    campuses, right?  If not, it's an attempt to make and enforce policies
    that silence certain types of speech and behaviors.  And, it has run
    amok at many schools.  People are brought up on charges for among
    other things "inappropriate laughter", which includes laughing at an
    ethnic joke, and "inappropriate staring", in which looking too long
    at an attractive female is deemed the moral equivalent of sexual
    harrassment.  Common sense seems to have taken the upper hand, however,
    as some of the more extreme codes of conduct have been judged
    unconstitutional.
    
    Pete

    
    
    
    JaKe
    

�    Awaiting deletion of our notes,
    
    If you think a note will be deleted, why the hell do you post it in the
    first place?

Pete 

Good use of the word AMOK when referring to PC.   Anyone who pays
any attention to PC stuff is really just trying to raise there 
blood pressure.

Jake - you ain't PC - coulda fooled me ;-)

JD

    PC as it refers to me=  Pornographically Correct, or sumthin like that.
    
    JaKe
    

    No, I haven't heard of any PC movements at college campuses out thised
    way.  Maybe it's one of those West Coast things.

Scoot on over to Wellesley and U-Mass Amhearst then....

    PC is an important movement( not unlike bowel movements)
    
    
    I think most college students need to get a PC to keep track of their
    school stuff.  Plus, they cain get some great games fer their PC
    nowadays.
    
    Schnortt Schitt Schlepps
    
    JaKe
    

    >If you think a note will be deleted, why the hell do you post it in the
    >first place?
    
    Mac, you could get in trouble for using naughty words 8^).
    
    I only posted it because it was in reaction to a deliberately
    provocative note.  I would never, never, never post a note I thought
    would be deleted unless pushed over the edge by Heinous Heiser.
    
    Pete 

    Nice to see such objectivity in here.  Since when is an ACLU case a
    win-win situation?  Somebody's freedoms are damaged no matter what
    viewpoint you hold.

    re-.1
    
    The same can be said for about 99 percent of what goes on throughout
    life everyday.
    
    JaKe
    
    

|      <<< Note 93.32 by SHARE::DERRY "Head is empty & talkin' trash..." >>>
|
|> I'm not sure, but I think for something to be slanderous, it has to be
|> untrue.  I said about that it was TRUE.
|
|Yes, that's right but you said "it MAY be true."  (-:

Okay.  I forgot I said it that way.   8^)


'Saw

    	I believe something can be proven true yet still be slanderous.
    For example the XYZ corporation put something in baby's milk that
    makes them grow hair on their back and you say the XYZ corporation
    is <expletive deleted>.  XYZ corporation could still sue for slander
    'cuz you said they were <expletive deleted> for putting stuff in the 
    milk that caused hairy backs.
    
    				/Don

    
    As a shareholder in Gillette, I think it's GREAT that XYZ puts stuff
    like that in their milk!
    
    Aren't furry little children a lot like rugby?
    
    I remain,
    in support of XYZ!
    Kev
    

�"inappropriate staring", 
    
    I guess my grandmother was way before her time.  She always told me it
    wasn't polite to stare.  

   
   � As a shareholder in Gillette, I think it's GREAT that XYZ puts stuff
   � like that in their milk!
    
   � Aren't furry little children a lot like rugby?
    
   � I remain,
   � in support of XYZ!
   � Kev
   

That's what I like about ol' Kev - a firm grasp of the issue at hand....

=Bob=

    Yeah, Mac, but I'll bet granny never suggested that someone be
    charged with sexual harassment if they don't like the staring.
    
    What was her view on "inappropriate laughter"? 8^)
    
    Pete