OKC announcer suspended 1 game for offensive comment

[CelticD]

In this social climate a 1 game suspension is appropriate. Clearly the announcer didn't mean anything offensive, but sayings like that in general shouldn't be said in a basketball setting.

This thought process (shared by tens of millions) scares me.

Being punished without fault because of mob outcry is exactly what our Constitution aims to prevent. The guy “only” loses his paycheck due to the media / social media lynch mob.

Well this isn't a government/constitutional issue. All of the outcries of protest stem from the same freedom of speech privileges that granted the announcer the right to say what he said. The NBA gets to choose how they handle situations that cause public outrage.

I don't see what's so scary about that. We've never lived in a world where you can say whatever you wanted with absolutely no pushback whatsoever.

I didn’t say it was a Constitutional issue. I said that our Constitution aims to prevent things like this, which it does. Due Process, habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, freedoms reserved to the people: they’re all about fundamental fairness. We have inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The Framers were never okay with somebody who enjoyed Constitutional Protection being deprived of a paycheck without a fair process and notice.  They just never figured America would turn into a society where money was taken out of somebody’s pockets despite no wrongdoing.

Those are usually placed in contracts these days no? My current employer has the right to fire me for absolutely no reason without giving any advanced notice. Perhaps that announcer is subjected to similar rules where he may face suspension for saying anything that may be deemed offensive to listeners?

Who knows, but like I said I think it was an appropriate disciplinary action.Had he been fired then that would've been extreme.

[Roy H.]

In this social climate a 1 game suspension is appropriate. Clearly the announcer didn't mean anything offensive, but sayings like that in general shouldn't be said in a basketball setting.

This thought process (shared by tens of millions) scares me.

Being punished without fault because of mob outcry is exactly what our Constitution aims to prevent. The guy “only” loses his paycheck due to the media / social media lynch mob.

Well this isn't a government/constitutional issue. All of the outcries of protest stem from the same freedom of speech privileges that granted the announcer the right to say what he said. The NBA gets to choose how they handle situations that cause public outrage.

I don't see what's so scary about that. We've never lived in a world where you can say whatever you wanted with absolutely no pushback whatsoever.

I didn’t say it was a Constitutional issue. I said that our Constitution aims to prevent things like this, which it does. Due Process, habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, freedoms reserved to the people: they’re all about fundamental fairness. We have inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The Framers were never okay with somebody who enjoyed Constitutional Protection being deprived of a paycheck without a fair process and notice.  They just never figured America would turn into a society where money was taken out of somebody’s pockets despite no wrongdoing.

"No wrongdoing". I think this is the point where we disagree. I'm not saying that it was blatantly racist. I'm saying that the broadcaster said something that was both dumb and tone-deaf. I'm not sure if that qualifies for a suspension or not.

I find it interesting that some of us know of the framers' intentions. I can blatantly say that I have no idea what they were thinking about. I've read historical accounts of the Philadelphia Convention, but I won't use similar texts as gospel.

I hear this line of thinking often, especially regarding the 2nd Amendment. How can we emphatically say that we know what these people were thinking about? As time goes on, we are able to see that our written history has shown inconsistencies.

Read the writings of the Framers, the Federalist papers, the laws that were in place at the time, the leading political philosophers of the time.

And no, saying a common phrase that has no specific racist history behind it, without racist intent, is never wrong doing.

[Roy H.]

Let’s do a thought experiment for those completely okay with the suspension.

If the CelticsBlog staff banned you, without notice, for using the term “trading block”, would you think it was fair?

[Kuberski33]

In this social climate a 1 game suspension is appropriate. Clearly the announcer didn't mean anything offensive, but sayings like that in general shouldn't be said in a basketball setting.

This thought process (shared by tens of millions) scares me.

Being punished without fault because of mob outcry is exactly what our Constitution aims to prevent. The guy “only” loses his paycheck due to the media / social media lynch mob.

Well this isn't a government/constitutional issue. All of the outcries of protest stem from the same freedom of speech privileges that granted the announcer the right to say what he said. The NBA gets to choose how they handle situations that cause public outrage.

I don't see what's so scary about that. We've never lived in a world where you can say whatever you wanted with absolutely no pushback whatsoever.

I didn’t say it was a Constitutional issue. I said that our Constitution aims to prevent things like this, which it does. Due Process, habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, freedoms reserved to the people: they’re all about fundamental fairness. We have inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The Framers were never okay with somebody who enjoyed Constitutional Protection being deprived of a paycheck without a fair process and notice.  They just never figured America would turn into a society where money was taken out of somebody’s pockets despite no wrongdoing.

Freedom to say what you want with the limit being advocating for the overthrow of the US government.  Slowly our society is eroding this.  As in business,  the limits of free speech should be up to the market to decide.  Someone's offensive, ignore them or don't consume their product. But saying you can't say that you lose a paycheck - that's gone way too far. 

Big brother is not the government as a past generation believed, it has become our hyper-sensitive way too PC portion of the populace.

[green_bballers13]

In this social climate a 1 game suspension is appropriate. Clearly the announcer didn't mean anything offensive, but sayings like that in general shouldn't be said in a basketball setting.

This thought process (shared by tens of millions) scares me.

Being punished without fault because of mob outcry is exactly what our Constitution aims to prevent. The guy “only” loses his paycheck due to the media / social media lynch mob.

Well this isn't a government/constitutional issue. All of the outcries of protest stem from the same freedom of speech privileges that granted the announcer the right to say what he said. The NBA gets to choose how they handle situations that cause public outrage.

I don't see what's so scary about that. We've never lived in a world where you can say whatever you wanted with absolutely no pushback whatsoever.

I didn’t say it was a Constitutional issue. I said that our Constitution aims to prevent things like this, which it does. Due Process, habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, freedoms reserved to the people: they’re all about fundamental fairness. We have inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The Framers were never okay with somebody who enjoyed Constitutional Protection being deprived of a paycheck without a fair process and notice.  They just never figured America would turn into a society where money was taken out of somebody’s pockets despite no wrongdoing.

"No wrongdoing". I think this is the point where we disagree. I'm not saying that it was blatantly racist. I'm saying that the broadcaster said something that was both dumb and tone-deaf. I'm not sure if that qualifies for a suspension or not.

I find it interesting that some of us know of the framers' intentions. I can blatantly say that I have no idea what they were thinking about. I've read historical accounts of the Philadelphia Convention, but I won't use similar texts as gospel.

I hear this line of thinking often, especially regarding the 2nd Amendment. How can we emphatically say that we know what these people were thinking about? As time goes on, we are able to see that our written history has shown inconsistencies.

Read the writings of the Framers, the Federalist papers, the laws that were in place at the time, the leading political philosophers of the time.

And no, saying a common phrase that has no specific racist history behind it, without racist intent, is never wrong doing.

I didn't spend too much time finding the origin of the cotton-picking comment, but I did see this:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/118386-5-racist-english-phrases-with-a-seriously-awful-history

Obviously not a scholarly report. The author mentions 5 statements as being offensive:

1) Sold down a river
2) No can do
3) Getting gyped
4) Off the reservation
5) Out of your cotton picking mind

I think it is our right to figure out what is/ isn't offensive. We can disagree with all of the statements as being offensive.

That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.

I would choose the former option.

[gouki88]

Let’s do a thought experiment for those completely okay with the suspension.

If the CelticsBlog staff banned you, without notice, for using the term “trading block”, would you think it was fair?

Lol, TP

[Roy H.]

That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t think anybody objects to being politely educated about an offensive phrase.

Taking away somebody’s paycheck for using a phrase in common usage is another thing entirely.

[CelticD]

Let’s do a thought experiment for those completely okay with the suspension.

If the CelticsBlog staff banned you, without notice, for using the term “trading block”, would you think it was fair?

I'll answer no just to be simple and objective (although I could be nit picky with your scenario).

I'm just curious to see how you'll run parallels between this announcer's suspension, and your experiment.

[green_bballers13]

Let’s do a thought experiment for those completely okay with the suspension.

If the CelticsBlog staff banned you, without notice, for using the term “trading block”, would you think it was fair?

I never even thought about it. And you're right- I'm sure there are slavery origins.

If one person close to me acted legitimately offended, I wouldn't use that term. Game. Set. Match.

I don't care enough to "be right" over taking other people's feelings into consideration.

I think it all depends on who you are talking to. I would prob get laughs at a Klan rally over this topic, while people sitting at brunch in the city might think I'm a jerk.

[green_bballers13]

That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t think anybody objects to being politely educated about an offensive phrase.

Taking away somebody’s paycheck for using a phrase in common usage is another thing entirely.

Common usage for which type of people?

I'm in my 30's and have never used this term. I get your point if you're talking to an 80 year old. We should let things slide for older people, in my opinion.

[Roy H.]

That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t think anybody objects to being politely educated about an offensive phrase.

Taking away somebody’s paycheck for using a phrase in common usage is another thing entirely.

Common usage for which type of people?

I'm in my 30's and have never used this term. I get your point if you're talking to an 80 year old. We should let things slide for older people, in my opinion.

I don’t know what the age cut off is, but is there anybody who grew up in the 80s or before who hasn’t heard the phrase?

[Roy H.]

Let’s do a thought experiment for those completely okay with the suspension.

If the CelticsBlog staff banned you, without notice, for using the term “trading block”, would you think it was fair?

I'll answer no just to be simple and objective (although I could be nit picky with your scenario).

I'm just curious to see how you'll run parallels between this announcer's suspension, and your experiment.

The announcer lost compensation (property) without notice or intent.

The poster would lose recreation (happiness) without notice or intent.

[green_bballers13]

That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t think anybody objects to being politely educated about an offensive phrase.

Taking away somebody’s paycheck for using a phrase in common usage is another thing entirely.

Common usage for which type of people?

I'm in my 30's and have never used this term. I get your point if you're talking to an 80 year old. We should let things slide for older people, in my opinion.

I don’t know what the age cut off is, but is there anybody who grew up in the 80s or before who hasn’t heard the phrase?

I’ve def heard it, just haven’t used it. I also didn’t need to do a Google search to realize that it is a statement that a young white man should not be making.

[moiso]

That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t think anybody objects to being politely educated about an offensive phrase.

Taking away somebody’s paycheck for using a phrase in common usage is another thing entirely.

Common usage for which type of people?

I'm in my 30's and have never used this term. I get your point if you're talking to an 80 year old. We should let things slide for older people, in my opinion.

I don’t know what the age cut off is, but is there anybody who grew up in the 80s or before who hasn’t heard the phrase?

I'm 44 and used to hear it all the time. It was in all the cartoons I watched as a kid.  Yosemite Sam and others that I can't think of now.

[nickagneta]

53 here and I heard and used it a lot as a way to call people crazy, nuts, etc. Used it in front of African American people, none of whom ever told me it offended them. The saying's origins may have been racial, but their conotation nowadays simply is not.