Richard Sherman mocking the NFL

[jterrell]

I don't think you know what "free speech" means. "Free speech" means you can say anything you want and the government won't punish you (obviously there are exceptions for things like threatening people or creating a dangerous situation but that isn't what we're talking about here). "Free speech" does not mean you can say anything you want with absolutely zero consequences whatsoever.

The government has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here so you can spare us the comparisons to North Korea. Nobody is saying Sherman should go to jail.

There can definitely be consequences from an organization you belong to (or work for) based on things you say. If you don't believe me, just ask Donald Sterling. All he was doing was exercising his free speech, right? So maybe you should go into work and start throwing around racial slurs at everyone. Then when they fire you, get back here and tell us all how your rights to free speech were violated.

cool story bro, now all you gotta do is point out where richard sherman used a racial slur and you will have actually made a point.
oh wait. he didn't.
he made a statement for player safety and player endorsement freedoms.
neither of those are threatening or creating a dangerous situation so are absolutely free speech opinions protected by our constitution.

the CBA is not more important than the constitution.
not even if Goodell really wants to be Kim badly and hand down discipline from his dictatorship.
and we just learned this to be the case as his last decision was reversed by a judge.

 

[EST_1986]

cool story bro, now all you gotta do is point out where richard sherman used a racial slur and you will have actually made a point.
oh wait. he didn't.
he made a statement for player safety and player endorsement freedoms.
neither of those are threatening or creating a dangerous situation so are absolutely free speech opinions protected by our constitution.

the CBA is not more important than the constitution.
not even if Goodell really wants to be Kim badly and hand down discipline from his dictatorship.
and we just learned this to be the case as his last decision was reversed by a judge.

I'm loving what Sherman said but you can not rail against your employer and not expect to be punished in some fashion. Just because he didn't cross a socially taboo line doesn't mean he didn't cross an employee-employer line. Which he obviously did talking about beats and all the other things he did. He should be applauded by his peers but reprimanded by his employer.

 

[Nova]

cool story bro, now all you gotta do is point out where richard sherman used a racial slur and you will have actually made a point.
oh wait. he didn't.
he made a statement for player safety and player endorsement freedoms.
neither of those are threatening or creating a dangerous situation so are absolutely free speech opinions protected by our constitution.

the CBA is not more important than the constitution.
not even if Goodell really wants to be Kim badly and hand down discipline from his dictatorship.
and we just learned this to be the case as his last decision was reversed by a judge.

He was just using an exaggerated example. I'll use a more direct comparison since it just went over your head.

Ever work at a place that required a uniform? If so, did they ever ask you NOT to wear it when not on the clock?

Sure you have a right to that company shirt with a logo to a bar, but if you get sloshed and embarrass yourself and the company, expect ramifications. It's grounds for termination.

I can't put it any simpler than that and what Rogah has already said.

And no the last ruling it wasn't reversed "by a judge", per se, but rather an arbitrator whose qualification for selection was that she was a former judge. There's a difference. She was appointed by the NFL to resolve a dispute-- US legislation did not step in like you seemingly are under the impression.

 

[Nova]

If the NFL is going to force guys to conduct media responsibilities they are going to say things the NFL doesn't like.
that is really unavoidable.

True. But there are rules. Breaking them has consequences.

richard sherman was 100% correct in his statements
he questioned NFL hypocrisy which is absurdly over the top.
the NFL tells players they may not sponsor alcoholic products but claims Budweiser as a major league sponsor.
he correctly notes the League argues how serious it is including creating rules for player safety yet asks guy to play two games within 4 days....

I actually don't have much of an issue with these two talking points, but let's just examine the beer thing for a second.

Sherman is missing the point of alcoholic sponsorships. I think it's slightly hypocritical to have an official beer of the NFL and not let individual players endorse alcohol, but it's such a deep issue, I don't think Sherman thought it through.

Even the Hawks biggest rivals are supporting those statements.

To be very clear, the NFL wouldn't exist without these players.
It is not only their right but their duty to make statements and bring about change.
And your CBA nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Players are required to sign off on that the same way anyone is beholden to an employer.
But it never means they can not complain about those statutes or ask they be changed.
Employer behavior is not off limits nor above reproach.
And saying you don't like contract terms isn't breaking a contract.

Right. The players have all the power. Which is why it is their own damned fault they're even in the position they are in. They and their union has been weak in the past when engaging in collective bargaining. They've always fought hardest for money and not their bargained rights. If Sherman really wants to effect change he wouldn't hold a poorly thought out passive aggressive press conference.

Our position is a bit different than NFL players. We don't speak to the media so the 'complaining' aspect is not exactly the same here. And complaining isn't all Sherman did here. I don't know how you don't see that. Dropping endorsement shout outs for a non-official NFL sponsor during an official NFL presser is a conflict of interest that puts the NFL in a tough spot with their sponsors.

If Richard Sherman started his own league he'd be in the wrong.
But he is perfectly within his right to complain, Lord know every American complains plenty!
Including your crying here about his complaining.

Yeah I'm not doing any crying here.

 

[paladin]

he made a statement for player safety and player endorsement freedoms.
neither of those are threatening or creating a dangerous situation so are absolutely free speech opinions protected by our constitution.

Off-topic
But your understanding of free speech protection in the workplace is simply incorrect.
The "no crying fire" is not the standard.

 

[Rogah]

cool story bro, now all you gotta do is point out where richard sherman used a racial slur and you will have actually made a point.
oh wait. he didn't.
he made a statement for player safety and player endorsement freedoms.
neither of those are threatening or creating a dangerous situation so are absolutely free speech opinions protected by our constitution.

Cool story bro. Now all you gotta do is point out where the government of the United States is trying to punish Sherman for anything he said. Otherwise all your talk about Constitutional freedoms is nonsense.

Now do you have anything intelligent to say to address the point I made about there being consequences at someone's workplace for someone's speech?

Tell ya what, go into work on Monday and call women and minorities you see there by sexist and racist comments. Then when they fire your ***, come back here and tell us about your Constitutional rights.

the CBA is not more important than the constitution.

Oh I see. Just because a legal contract that an individual signed in good faith and a CBA negotiated by a union he joined of his own free will isn't as important as the Constitution means it can't be enforced. Got'cha.