Okay, so I keep seeing this all over Facebook. And I feel the need to address it…
Free Speech or Not Free Speech? That seems to be the question…
You’ve most likely, unless you live in a hole deeper than mine, seen the news stories of the 5 St Louis football players who, as they ran onto the field, threw their hands up in the air in protest over the grand jury decision in the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson case in Ferguson. I’m sure you’re familiar with that case. If not, Google is your friend…
Since the story broke, some have called for the reprimand of the 5 players. Some have even called for their resignation. I have seen many debates on the subject. Those who don’t think they should be reprimanded say it’s “Free Speech” and they have a right to do it.
Isn’t that special?
Well, it is interesting that they’re getting special treatment – that’s for sure…
I find it quite interesting that this is the stance that people take on this particular topic. “It’s free speech! It’s their right! This is America, they can express themselves if they so choose!!”
It sure is. And they sure can. I have no problems with that. But… If we’re being honest here, they are there -on that field- representing a part of a whole. They are there representing an entire team, not themselves. And they’re paid to be there.
They’re paid to run fast, not give their opinion of the latest news scandal.
They’re paid to knock people over, not protest the decisions of a grand jury.
They’re paid to throw and catch a leather covered egg – not to speak on behalf of their team.
(The outrage over Tim Tebow’s beliefs vs Jason Collin’s beliefs come into play here too… But, I digress…)
My point is this…
I find it interesting that it’s free speech for these players to protest during a team sport, but not free speech when the owner of a restaurant chain states he supports ‘traditional marriage’.
Or that it’s free speech for these players to protest while entering the field, but not free speech when a man, whose family has a reality show, states he doesn’t understand the homosexual lifestyle.
And it’s equally interesting that it’s free speech for these players to give their opinion during a team sport, but not free speech when a lady, whose family has a reality show, states she disagrees with a certain law because it makes children vulnerable to abuse.
How backwards is the world when the personal feelings of those football players are okay and free speech, but those of Dan Cathy, owner/operator of the Chik-Fil-A restaurants, are not okay and should result in his restaurants being boycotted? It wasn’t like he was refusing to hire those who didn’t believe in traditional marriage… Or refusing to serve those who didn’t believe in traditional marriage… Just that he, personally, felt traditional marriage was the correct way of doing it. And that is, somehow, deserving of his entire chain of restaurants getting boycotted. (It backfired, but the point is the same.)
And the thing is… He didn’t even say he didn’t believe in “gay marriage”… He said he supported “traditional marriage”. So, guess what…? All you heterosexual folks, living together, raising kids together, sleeping around, etc. He doesn’t support your lifestyle either. He supports “traditional marriage”. That means, one man, one woman – married. (However, I don’t recall anyone but those in support of the homosexual lifestyle getting their knickers in a bunch… js)
Phil Robertson, during a magazine interview – not during the show, not on the show – was talking about his faith and his beliefs. During which he stated he did not understand the appeal one man would be to another. He said it a bit more colorful, but just the same, that’s what he said. He even went on to say that he’s got sin in his own life, but the gay community didn’t get that far. They heard he didn’t understand how a man could appeal to a man and boom – he’s an anti-gay bigot.
The words of Mrs Duggar, in a recorded message – not on her show, not during her show, spoke about one transgendered man. A man she called a pedophile – because he was a convicted pedophile. She then went on about a specific law she was against passing because it made it easier for pedophiles to harm children. Because of that, she was accused of saying that ALL transgendered people were pedophiles – which she did not do.
None of these three people, Mrs Duggar and Phil Robertson specifically, didn’t say these things “on the clock”. They didn’t say them on their show and they didn’t personally insult any one person on the show or otherwise… But that’s still not free speech because they have shows and their opinions would be known. However, the same doesn’t apply for those 5 football players…
The players who protested, by putting their hands in the air, did so as they entered the field. They did so while they were “on the clock”. These other people did the things they did on their own time. Not on their shows, not in their restaurants. On their OWN time.
The Duggars, and Dan Cathy, both made donations to Christian organizations and that too came under scrutiny. Apparently, what they do with their money and how they spend their money is a problem and up for others to decide how it should be spent.
I find this sort of stance, or sort of entitlement, just stupid. If how they spend their money is a problem for you, then stop eating in their restaurants. Stop watching their shows. You have that right. But to demand they lose their jobs, their shows, their restaraunts… Who died and made you the person in charge of how others spend their own personal monies?
That’s just ignorant.
Oh, okay… So, you’re saying you will not tolerate their intolerance. Wait…. Doesn’t that make you … intolerant? See how that works? No? Why am I not surprised…?
How backwards is the world when a man can’t honestly answer a question he’s asked, during an interview – off the clock – without people calling for his show to be cancelled? Or for him to be removed from the show? Or for a woman to disagree with the acts of one transgendered person…?
Honestly though, I like this idea. I like the idea of famous people, or semi-famous people, having to keep their opinions to themselves or suffer the consequences of losing their jobs… But that’s not how it works now, is it? Nope.
That rule only applies if you’re famous and conservative.
That rule only applies if you’re famous and against the homosexual lifestyle.
That rule only applies if you’re famous and against [insert any topic that the liberal left supports].
But… That’s just par for the course, isn’t it?
Personally, reprimand the players – don’t reprimand the players – I don’t really care. I won’t be watching them play or buying any product they endorse, that is my right. All I ask is that you do the same for others. If it’s free speech for one, it’s free speech for all. Especially when it’s their personal opinion and it’s not expressed while they’re being paid.