DirectTV allowing refunds for Sunday ticket

[Paladin3]

Wow, another debate turns into partisan bickering and name calling, who'd a thunk it could happen?

Most folks don't even understand what "freedom of speech" as guaranteed under the US Constitution even means. It means you can speak your opinion (within reason, there are a few forms of speech that are not protected, like the classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room) without fear of persecution from the government. Nothing more.

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee you the right to express your opinion on your employer's time or that they have to continue to employ you should you conduct yourself in a way they feel reflects negatively on them. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean a newspaper has to print your letters to the editor, or that the media has to report your opinion, or that you have the right express yourself at the expense of others. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean you have a "right" to use this or any other forum to express yourself and the owners can demand users follow any kind of rules they choose to enforce. Or simply kick you out for no reason whatsoever.

In short, nobody is forced to support or facilitate your freedom of speech. You simply are free from government persecution for your speech until it rises to the level of a crime, again, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

NFL players are representing their employer, team and the entire league when they put that uniform on. Off the field it could very easily be argued that they still represent their employer in some situations due to their notoriety as a player. It is up to NFL league officials and team owners to decide if their players/employees are to be allowed to protest by taking a knee, or wear pink shoes to support breast cancer awareness, or wear black arm bands to mourn someone's passing, etc. during a game.

The individual players are free to do what their employer asks of them or not. And suffer whatever consequences the league chooses to impose should they decide to do so. Fans can have their opinions heard by voting with their wallets one way or the other, but whatever happens and whichever side you are on, this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

 

[JujuFish]

It means you can speak your opinion without fear of persecution from the government.

You mean like when the President calls said people sons of bitches and tries to get owners to fire them?

 

[Greenman]

Wow, another debate turns into partisan bickering and name calling, who'd a thunk it could happen?

Most folks don't even understand what "freedom of speech" as guaranteed under the US Constitution even means. It means you can speak your opinion (within reason, there are a few forms of speech that are not protected, like the classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room) without fear of persecution from the government. Nothing more.

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee you the right to express your opinion on your employer's time or that they have to continue to employ you should you conduct yourself in a way they feel reflects negatively on them. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean a newspaper has to print your letters to the editor, or that the media has to report your opinion, or that you have the right express yourself at the expense of others. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean you have a "right" to use this or any other forum to express yourself and the owners can demand users follow any kind of rules they choose to enforce. Or simply kick you out for no reason whatsoever.

In short, nobody is forced to support or facilitate your freedom of speech. You simply are free from government persecution for your speech until it rises to the level of a crime, again, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

NFL players are representing their employer, team and the entire league when they put that uniform on. Off the field it could very easily be argued that they still represent their employer in some situations due to their notoriety as a player. It is up to NFL league officials and team owners to decide if their players/employees are to be allowed to protest by taking a knee, or wear pink shoes to support breast cancer awareness, or wear black arm bands to mourn someone's passing, etc. during a game.

The individual players are free to do what their employer asks of them or not. And suffer whatever consequences the league chooses to impose should they decide to do so. Fans can have their opinions heard by voting with their wallets one way or the other, but whatever happens and whichever side you are on, this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

This is exactly right.
Look at it from a personal prospective. You're paying a guy a million dollars a month to play ball, wouldn't you want to have a say about his behavior will he's on the clock? Wouldn't you also want to make sure he doesn't do anything to piss off your customers anytime? You absolutely have the right to dictate those terms and enforce them. The fellow playing ball absolutely has the right to tell you to piss up a rope and do as he pleases, understanding that you will most likely stop giving him his million dollar check every month.

 

[zinfamous]

Wow, another debate turns into partisan bickering and name calling, who'd a thunk it could happen?

Most folks don't even understand what "freedom of speech" as guaranteed under the US Constitution even means. It means you can speak your opinion (within reason, there are a few forms of speech that are not protected, like the classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room) without fear of persecution from the government. Nothing more.

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee you the right to express your opinion on your employer's time or that they have to continue to employ you should you conduct yourself in a way they feel reflects negatively on them. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean a newspaper has to print your letters to the editor, or that the media has to report your opinion, or that you have the right express yourself at the expense of others. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean you have a "right" to use this or any other forum to express yourself and the owners can demand users follow any kind of rules they choose to enforce. Or simply kick you out for no reason whatsoever.

In short, nobody is forced to support or facilitate your freedom of speech. You simply are free from government persecution for your speech until it rises to the level of a crime, again, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

NFL players are representing their employer, team and the entire league when they put that uniform on. Off the field it could very easily be argued that they still represent their employer in some situations due to their notoriety as a player. It is up to NFL league officials and team owners to decide if their players/employees are to be allowed to protest by taking a knee, or wear pink shoes to support breast cancer awareness, or wear black arm bands to mourn someone's passing, etc. during a game.

The individual players are free to do what their employer asks of them or not. And suffer whatever consequences the league chooses to impose should they decide to do so. Fans can have their opinions heard by voting with their wallets one way or the other, but whatever happens and whichever side you are on, this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

Cool. You should inform the president.

 

[Paladin3]

You mean like when the President calls said people sons of bitches and tries to get owners to fire them?

No. Trump expressing is idiotic opinion is not even close to the same thing.

You disrespect folks around the world who have been imprisoned or killed for speaking out against their government when you make such stupid arguments.

 

[Paladin3]

Cool. You should inform the president.

Not sure Trump expressing his stupid opinion is exactly the same thing as government persecution. Actually, I'm pretty fucking sure it's not even close. You disrespect those around the world who have been jailed, tortured and/or murdered for peacefully speaking out against their government when you try to equate the two. That is what our First Amendment was written to prevent.

 

[JujuFish]

No. Trump expressing is idiotic opinion is not even close to the same thing.

You disrespect folks around the world who have been imprisoned or killed for speaking out against their government when you make such stupid arguments.

Let's see, *I* disrespect folks who speak out against their government by pointing out how our very own leader is using his power and influence to negatively affect his own citizens' lives? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Paladin3]

Let's see, *I* disrespect folks who speak out against their government by pointing out how our very own leader is using his power and influence to negatively affect his own citizens' lives? Yeah, that makes sense.

"You mean like when the President calls said people sons of bitches and tries to get owners to fire them?" <--- No, Trump voicing his stupid opinion is not what the first amendment protects folks from. It doesn't rise to anywhere near that level no mater how you try to phrase it.

 

[destrekor]

"You mean like when the President calls said people sons of bitches and tries to get owners to fire them?" <--- No, Trump voicing his stupid opinion is not what the first amendment protects folks from. It doesn't rise to anywhere near that level no mater how you try to phrase it.

While you are technically correct, there is more to it than just that.

Channeling Duterte (President of the Philippines) is not exactly a great look, and provides an awful lot of leeway for inciting aggressive action that isn't, technically, carried out by the government; or, it is carried out by government forces but they plant evidence and/or basically provide cover stories for what are otherwise police hits.

You cannot deny that there are certain deplorable actors who have proclaimed love for everything Trumpian, and have been inspired by him to commit violence. Whether you argue these people weren't mentally stable -- and were ripe for any authoritarian father figure to serve as a trigger -- doesn't even matter, as such folk have existed for millennia. It matters because an uptick in violence spawned by a President's mere suggestion runs afoul of everything this country once stood for, where unbiased legal justice once ruled the day. We've forever been a long way from that, but the divisiveness is literally driving a bloody wedge through the heart of the country.

 

[JujuFish]

"You mean like when the President calls said people sons of bitches and tries to get owners to fire them?" <--- No, Trump voicing his stupid opinion is not what the first amendment protects folks from. It doesn't rise to anywhere near that level no mater how you try to phrase it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my last statement. You tried to say I was the one being disrespectful, when it is you who were being disrespectful.

 

[Paladin3]

While you are technically correct, there is more to it than just that.

Channeling Duterte (President of the Philippines) is not exactly a great look, and provides an awful lot of leeway for inciting aggressive action that isn't, technically, carried out by the government; or, it is carried out by government forces but they plant evidence and/or basically provide cover stories for what are otherwise police hits.

You cannot deny that there are certain deplorable actors who have proclaimed love for everything Trumpian, and have been inspired by him to commit violence. Whether you argue these people weren't mentally stable -- and were ripe for any authoritarian father figure to serve as a trigger -- doesn't even matter, as such folk have existed for millennia. It matters because an uptick in violence spawned by a President's mere suggestion runs afoul of everything this country once stood for, where unbiased legal justice once ruled the day. We've forever been a long way from that, but the divisiveness is literally driving a bloody wedge through the heart of the country.

What???

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."

My only point is that too many Americans believe the above gives them the right to go anywhere and say anything they want to and be free of any and all consequences. It does not. The above does not protect those players taking a knee from consequences should their employers, sponsors or fans disapprove of their protests. Nor was anything Trump said violating those players rights or constitutes any abridging of their freedom of speech.

So, I'm not debating hypotheticals with you and nothing you've posted refutes my point in the slightest.

 

[Paladin3]

That has absolutely nothing to do with my last statement. You tried to say I was the one being disrespectful, when it is you who were being disrespectful.

It has everything to do with what you said. You are implying that Trump speaking out against those players is violating their free speech protections. It is not. Folks have fought and died, been jailed, tortured and killed for peacefully speaking against their governments, and that's what the First Amendment was written to protect us from. You equated the two, not me.

 

[slayer202]

this is my new favorite thread

 

[Thebobo]

Wow, another debate turns into partisan bickering and name calling, who'd a thunk it could happen?

Most folks don't even understand what "freedom of speech" as guaranteed under the US Constitution even means. It means you can speak your opinion (within reason, there are a few forms of speech that are not protected, like the classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room) without fear of persecution from the government. Nothing more.

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee you the right to express your opinion on your employer's time or that they have to continue to employ you should you conduct yourself in a way they feel reflects negatively on them. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean a newspaper has to print your letters to the editor, or that the media has to report your opinion, or that you have the right express yourself at the expense of others. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean you have a "right" to use this or any other forum to express yourself and the owners can demand users follow any kind of rules they choose to enforce. Or simply kick you out for no reason whatsoever.

In short, nobody is forced to support or facilitate your freedom of speech. You simply are free from government persecution for your speech until it rises to the level of a crime, again, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

NFL players are representing their employer, team and the entire league when they put that uniform on. Off the field it could very easily be argued that they still represent their employer in some situations due to their notoriety as a player. It is up to NFL league officials and team owners to decide if their players/employees are to be allowed to protest by taking a knee, or wear pink shoes to support breast cancer awareness, or wear black arm bands to mourn someone's passing, etc. during a game.

The individual players are free to do what their employer asks of them or not. And suffer whatever consequences the league chooses to impose should they decide to do so. Fans can have their opinions heard by voting with their wallets one way or the other, but whatever happens and whichever side you are on, this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

There is no debate here it's just look at my wall of text aren't I smart?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I remember a popular football player taking a knee for God and the lefest snowflakes were up in arms. I call it a double standard. Colin Kaperdick started this BS and I don't think these football players really know what they are protesting. If it truly is about "discrimination" or some shit, the field isn't the venue. Go do that shit in front of your local precinct.

The majority of America does not support this taking a knee shit, they are burning their jerseys, tickets, hats, you name it. The NFL is going to lose their ass. And I hope we pull their tax dollars too! Can you imagine what service men and woman thought when those assholes took a knee in Britain watching from Afghanistan on the Armed Forces Network?!

My beef with this is that it's bullshit attention whoring (at least on Kaperdick's part). Whats that? Everything was fine and dandy when you were the starter? Then you have a shit season with 1 shit win and now you're the backup-QB and all of a sudden NOW is when you want to protest for "racial injustice" is after you were famous and had a bigger paycheck? Anyone who can't tell that is attention-whoring-101 needs to take a retard test because you would pass with flying colors.

That said, I overall don't care. I don't even watch NFL anymore I just play fantasy.

 

[Thebobo]

My beef with this is that it's bullshit attention whoring (at least on Kaperdick's part). Whats that? Everything was fine and dandy when you were the starter? Then you have a shit season with 1 shit win and now you're the backup-QB and all of a sudden NOW is when you want to protest for "racial injustice" is after you were famous and had a bigger paycheck? Anyone who can't tell that is attention-whoring-101 needs to take a retard test because you would pass with flying colors.

That said, I overall don't care. I don't even watch NFL anymore I just play fantasy.

Well it sounded like you cared. But maybe he did protest but no one noticed until he was more famous?

 

[dainthomas]

So many triggered righties. Makes me smile.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Well it sounded like you cared. But maybe he did protest but no one noticed until he was more famous?

Wut? What you said is kinda the opposite of what I was saying.

I said he DIDNT protest when he was famous, because he already had the attention from being starting QB. Now that he doesn't get attention because he was benched for being a shit starter QB, he is just seeking attention like typical attention-whores do.

I sincerely don't care - and this isn't the reason I stopped watching really. 90% of the time watching an NFL game these days is comprised of commercials and referees throwing flags and other stupid shit

 

[JujuFish]

It has everything to do with what you said. You are implying that Trump speaking out against those players is violating their free speech protections. It is not. Folks have fought and died, been jailed, tortured and killed for peacefully speaking against their governments, and that's what the First Amendment was written to protect us from. You equated the two, not me.

I didn't say a single thing about free speech. That was you, bud. And by the very words in your description of free speech, what Trump is doing does, in fact, violate it. It's not as egregious as many examples around the world even today, but that doesn't mean it's not a violation. He is using his power and influence as the commander in chief of the US government to negatively influence the lives of his own citizens because of their expression.

 

[JujuFish]

I said he DIDNT protest when he was famous, because he already had the attention from being starting QB. Now that he doesn't get attention because he was benched for being a shit starter QB, he is just seeking attention like typical attention-whores do.

This was pretty much my exact reaction when all this started last year. It really felt like a "look at me" moment since he lost his starting job.

Now, having said that, I realized that it doesn't take away from the importance of the message. You can be Giant Dickbag #1 and still be right about something.

 

[John Connor]

I didn't say a single thing about free speech. That was you, bud. And by the very words in your description of free speech, what Trump is doing does, in fact, violate it. It's not as egregious as many examples around the world even today, but that doesn't mean it's not a violation. He is using his power and influence as the commander in chief of the US government to negatively influence the lives of his own citizens because of their expression.

So you're saying the very President doesn't have free speech?

Granted he shouldn't have said 'get that SOB off the field.' Even though he resonated with many, many Americans. I would have said something like, "get that disrespectful idiot off the field."

If they're kneeling now it the wake of this tragedy, then they are truly dicks without purpose.

 

[JujuFish]

So you're saying the very President doesn't have free speech?

Not when he uses it with the power and authority afforded him by the very virtue of holding the position he does, because then he is prohibiting others' free speech. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if he were just a celebrity reality TV person and saying this. He's the POTUS.

If they're kneeling now it the wake of this tragedy, then they are truly dicks without purpose.

How in God's name are these two things even remotely connected?

 

[destrekor]

Sounds like some want mandatory reverence.