To rob

[ArvadaHawk]

Who forced him to apologize and not wear the shirt anymore? Did the school threaten to fire him?

more questions and no direct answer.

 

[RobHowe]

more questions and no direct answer.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT I'M TYPING?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

You're confusing people being mad and ganging up on someone over preventing them from speaking or making a statement.

Not the same thing.

If it were, what would be your basis and evidence for a lawsuit? Because if someone'e 1st Amendment rights have been violated there are by definition grounds for a lawsuit.

"OAN" is now restricted speech because of this. that is suppression of the first amendment. you're confusing yourself by not following simple logic and linear thought. this entire engagement at OSU has notified everyone that "OAN" is not allowed.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT I'M TYPING?

CAN YOU ANSWER A QUESTION WITH AN ACTUAL ANSWER? you're dancing around it, rob. your written words have said it's okay for some to be able have all the rights available under the 1st amendment, but not everyone can have the exact same full rights available to them. do you believe that to be fair and right?

now, i've boiled it down to a yes/no answer for a reply.

 

[HawkGold]

CAN YOU ANSWER A QUESTION WITH AN ACTUAL ANSWER? you're dancing around it, rob. your written words have said it's okay for some to be able have all the rights available under the 1st amendment, but not everyone can have the exact same full rights available to them. do you believe that to be fair and right?

now, i've boiled it down to a yes/no answer for a reply.

Your question is loaded.

 

[RobHowe]

CAN YOU ANSWER A QUESTION WITH AN ACTUAL ANSWER? you're dancing around it, rob. your written words have said it's okay for some to be able have all the rights available under the 1st amendment, but not everyone can have the exact same full rights available to them. do you believe that to be fair and right?

now, i've boiled it down to a yes/no answer for a reply.

Gundy's first amendment rights were not violated. The school did not threaten to fire him over the shirt he wore. It also did not force him to stop wearing the shirt or apologize.

How were his first amendment rights violated?

ANSWER THE QUESTION

 

[Ree4]

straw man, rob. i'm asking you. you're the one who wrote that (paraphrase) it's about time people listen to someone else's story. well, that works both ways, rob. you can't answer my question with a question and some sort of vague mumbling.

you've made a professional career based on the 1st amendment and good for you. but every single citizen of this country has the same right to that amendment and should not be forced to apologize for utilizing it.

you do agree with that, right?

I mean holy shit I even posted exactly what free speech means AFTER you asked me for the definition. I knew I shouldn't have bothered, knowing that you wouldn't read it or be able to comprehend what was in it.

Here it is again:

Oh I do know stuff. A simple google search would do it but I'll play along. The part that pertains to this discussion is regarding free speech.

The First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for government to suppress speech. They cannot make laws that restrict the expression of the people or press or to threaten retribution. This doesn't mean that people can say anything they want anytime and not expect retaliation, just that the government can't punish them for it. Their employees can fire them, their wives can disown them etc.

Not everything is protected though. Below are things that are not protected under the 1st amendment.

• To incite actions that would harm others
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
  
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.

In the case of Mike Gundy, twitter could have removed the picture or any of the responses to it. Contrary to what trump believes, twitter is a private platform and they are able to police it as they see fit.

You can say what you want (minus the examples above) without fear of retribution from the government, but don't expect everything you say to not have any backlash (especially on social media).

MOST IMPORTANT PART: You can say what you want (minus the examples above) without fear of retribution from the GOVERNMENT, but don't expect everything you say to not have any backlash (especially on social media).

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Gundy's first amendment rights were not violated. The school did not threaten to fire him over the shirt he wore. It also did not force him to stop wearing the shirt or apologize.

How were his first amendment rights violated?

ANSWER THE QUESTION

because if anyone else wanted to wear an "OAN" t-shirt, they'd be mobbed. "OAN" has become restricted speech, rob. do you really not see that?

 

[HawkGold]

I mean holy shit I even posted exactly what free speech means AFTER you asked me for the definition. I knew I shouldn't have bothered, knowing that you wouldn't read it or be able to comprehend what was in it.

Here it is again:



MOST IMPORTANT PART: You can say what you want (minus the examples above) without fear of retribution from the GOVERNMENT, but don't expect everything you say to not have any backlash (especially on social media).

We do have defamation laws. We do not have complete free speech.

 

[Fryowa]

"OAN" is now restricted speech because of this. that is suppression of the first amendment. you're confusing yourself by not following simple logic and linear thought. this entire engagement at OSU has notified everyone that "OAN" is not allowed.

You're dodging the question. If there's a suppression or violation of someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime. If you think that's happening, what would you use as a basis to sue on behalf of Mike Gundy?

Who would you sue? The school? OSU never even made a statement telling him to do anything.

Would you sue thousands of people on twitter? Go after all players who made a statement saying they didn't like what he did? Hate to tell you but there are lots of people who don't like what Gundy did wearing that shirt, and if you told them they should shut up, under your logic wouldn't you be suppressing their 1st Amendment rights?

So tell us how Gundy's 1st Amendment rights have been violated, by whom (specifically), and what your legal recourse would be. Because taking someone's constitutional rights away is a crime and you have to go after someone or something.

You're confusing a whole bunch of people being mad about something and influencing a person's actions with a Constitutional crime. No one forced Gundy to apologize. He could stand up for what he believes (if he really does anyway) and say "I'm not backing down." Would he lose support and maybe end up out of his job? It's possible. But it's not a crime. By making a public statement in the US it's assumed (and always has been) that you are open to criticism. In fact, it's one of the things that makes this country great.

Just because you and some other people are butthurt about the criticism doesn't make it a crime.

 

[RobHowe]

because if anyone else wanted to wear an "OAN" t-shirt, they'd be mobbed. "OAN" has become restricted speech, rob. do you really not see that?

It's not restricted. People wear them. It's not against the law.

I think you're confusing free speech with the consequences of it. Gundy is free to wear an OAN shirt. If some of his players leave the team because of it, that's their right.

 

[Fryowa]

Gundy's first amendment rights were not violated. The school did not threaten to fire him over the shirt he wore. It also did not force him to stop wearing the shirt or apologize.

How were his first amendment rights violated?

ANSWER THE QUESTION

He can't answer the question because there's no answer that supports his argument.

 

[Fryowa]

CAN YOU ANSWER A QUESTION WITH AN ACTUAL ANSWER? you're dancing around it, rob. your written words have said it's okay for some to be able have all the rights available under the 1st amendment, but not everyone can have the exact same full rights available to them. do you believe that to be fair and right?

now, i've boiled it down to a yes/no answer for a reply.

So if people boycotted Scheels stores because they sell guns would that be violating the owners' 2nd Amendment rights?

 

[kicker22]

kneeling for the national anthem is either a direct message that you do not care what the anthem represents, or, not having an understanding of it. America is an imperfect place. the world is an imperfect place. but America is the nation that has done, is doing, will do more than any other place on earth to find equality. the national anthem represents that. by definition, a protest is "against" something. so if you consider kneeling for the national anthem as a protest, then it is a protest against what the national anthem stands for. and protesting what the national anthem stands for is a sign of disrespect.

pro•test prə-tĕst′, prō-, prō′tĕst″
►

• intransitive verb
  To express a strong objection to (something).
• intransitive verb
  To participate in a public demonstration in opposition to (something): synonym: object.

As you stated a protest is "against something" like oppression, racial equality, or police brutality. I've never heard anyone come out and say I'm taking a knee during the national anthem because I"m protesting "the american flag" or "those that fought for it". I think your missing the point. The anthem isn't what is being protested against but rather used as the platform for such protest.

So my next question then would be the obvious solution. Would it be disrespectful to stop playing the national anthem or paying tribute to the flag at sporting events?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

It's not restricted. People wear them. It's not against the law.

I think you're confusing free speech with the consequences of it. Gundy is free to wear an OAN shirt. If some of his players leave the team because of it, that's their right.

you really think gundy could waltz right into the football facility wearing an OAN shirt and not feel like he could get fired now? sorry, rob, that ain't the real world and you should know that.

https://twitter.com/CoachGundy?ref_...ate-apology-video-t-shirt-oan-players-boycott

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mike+...s=n&sk=&cvid=5B42322FF03D4E288F728157BC1F513B

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06...pular-gator-bait-cheer-citing-racist-origins/

cat's out of the bag, folks. enjoy.

 

[Knight78]

Here's the deal. Gundy can wear the shirt and not apologize. How do you think that ends?

I have a bit of a different take on the Gundy t-shirt melodrama. How many of you have been fishing? (kind of a rhetorical question, I know) You KNOW when you go fishing that you're going to get dirty, wet, etc. so you do NOT wear your "Sunday go to church" clothes. You typically wear clothes that you don't mind losing to the grime that can sometimes go with fishing. I think he was wearing that t-shirt thinking that. It was just a t-shirt he pulled out of the drawer that he didn't care if it got messed up by wearing when he went fishing. I think anyone who believes he was making a political statement by wearing the shirt is overthinking.

 

[Knight78]

Gundy's first amendment rights were not violated. The school did not threaten to fire him over the shirt he wore. It also did not force him to stop wearing the shirt or apologize.

We actually don't know what was said behind closed doors to Gundy (and likely never will). But this does bring out a bigger question. Since OSU is a public land-grant research university, is it an extension of the government? Does that mean that OSU (and other public land-grant universities) cannot prohibit free speech of any kind?

 

[Adam]

We actually don't know what was said behind closed doors to Gundy (and likely never will). But this does bring out a bigger question. Since OSU is a public land-grant research university, is it an extension of the government? Does that mean that OSU (and other public land-grant universities) cannot prohibit free speech of any kind?

Technically it is already supposed to be that way 100%. It's a college. It is supposed to be the mountain top of free thought and free speech. Almost every single college fails this ideology.

 

[HawkGold]

Technically it is already supposed to be that way 100%. It's a college. It is supposed to be the mountain top of free thought and free speech. Almost every single college fails this ideology.

Free speech is a misnomer in the US to begin with. We do have defamation laws. Public universities are hardly a place for free speech. Also there is a difference between independence in the classroom and public comment. Sexual harassment is not protected by free speech. Abusive behavior and inflammatory behavior is not completely protected by free speech.

 

[karras]

Free speech is a misnomer in the US to begin with. Sexual harassment is not protected by free speech. Abusive behavior and inflammatory behavior is not completely protected by free speech.

you're conflating things because you're losing the debate . . . but thanx for making it clear you're not a fan of free speech . . . shocking that a political ideology which can't win debates would want to shut down ideas and speech