PDA

View Full Version : Shaq Fined 35K; The Death of Free Speech



TheHoopsProphet
12-28-2010, 09:01 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=5960248

Blame 9/11. Blame Technology. Blame Capitalism. Whatever the reason, free speech is going the way of the dinosaur. And the further we move forward, the more truth becomes a form of espionage, an act of betrayal. Just ask Julian Assange. What he is doing, is what our grandfathers used to call "journalism", but now is being decried as "egotism" and a "political agenda". By his advocates, he's being christened as a revolutionary figure.

George Orwell once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

David Stern fines players for not talking to the media after games, but will also fine them if they don't say what he wants them to. The prune-face megalomaniac, the sadistic ventriloquist, the totalitarian ruler, has now turned the NBA into an entity where the goal is profit first, integrity second. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to "preserve" (fabricate) its image, with the NBA cares programs, the hiring of new refs, the forcing of suits for street clothes, the assertion that headbands be NBA gear, the banning of straw-chewing, the prohibition of leggings, the expulsion of turtleneck sweaters on coaches, the rendering of bench-clearing policies, and now the censorship of thought. This midget of a man is an unequivocal, draconian control-freak.

Is this not unconstitutional? Hell, is it even humane? After the global fracas canonized by historians as World War II, an international conference was held to prevent a blood-spilling epoch as macabre as the second world war to occur again, in which they developed a declaration independent of national laws known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris, 1948. Amongst the 30 articles, which include provisions like the right to live and the right to equality, the 19th article reads, and I quote,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The right to speak freely is determined as notable and valuable as the right to live or live equally. Imagine that. Yet, even if freedom of speech wasn't part of the human rights movement, where does Hitler Stern come up with deciding the worth of expressing one's thoughts contradictory to the quota of the NBA anyway? Did he hire a mathematician from Cal Tech, or an economist from MIT to systematically determine that every dollar conjured up in the $35,000 handed from The Big Critic equally measured the significance of his critique? Every time he is about to decide a fining dollar figure for an athlete, does he make a phone call to Noam Chomsky discussing semantics, and then comes up to a conclusion of the fiscal value of each word spoken from the said athlete? Why not $50k? or $25k? or $34k? Hell why not just make it a million bucks all together? Its all about profit anyway right?

We would have to argue not only the morality of Hitler Stern's reign, but also the legalities of it. To arbitrarily determine the fining figure for an athlete, as well as when to hand out that fine from their interviews with media, does not seem to be anything short of a fascist system that is developing right under the nose of our supposed democratic American government. Then again, we are talking about the same American government that wants Julian Assange's head. Hitler Stern is watching you.

Gators123
12-28-2010, 09:05 AM
Its not that serious, bro.

SteBO
12-28-2010, 09:31 AM
The league hates it when players say they're wrong

PennyMy#1
12-28-2010, 09:31 AM
yada yada yada

Buckwheat
12-28-2010, 09:32 AM
:clap:

Preach on, brotha! Preach on!

Corey
12-28-2010, 09:41 AM
Death of free speech?

It's blatantly against the rules to publicly criticize the officials. You think Shaq didn't know that?

magichatnumber9
12-28-2010, 09:46 AM
Hitler Stern. When will the owners step up and get somebody better then this clown. Oh wait the NBA has the worst ownership in professional sports. Lock out is inevitable.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
12-28-2010, 09:46 AM
:clap:

wa77ss
12-28-2010, 09:59 AM
I wish they would let them play. i would love to see Dwight and Shaq truely bang it out down low like the old days.....you know ....use their god given bodies to change the game. But instead they have to play nice and cant give the fans what we want.



THey take the game out of the bigmans hands and make it all guards who control the game. At some point you have to take criticism. People can say what they want and what Shaq said was true.


Really no need for fines like this...its turning me away from the nba. Howard got T'd up for clapping for his 10second call........wtf.........

D-Leethal
12-28-2010, 10:10 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=5960248

Blame 9/11. Blame Technology. Blame Capitalism. Whatever the reason, free speech is going the way of the dinosaur. And the further we move forward, the more truth becomes a form of espionage, an act of betrayal. Just ask Julian Assange. What he is doing, is what our grandfathers used to call "journalism", but now is being decried as "egotism" and a "political agenda". By his advocates, he's being christened as a revolutionary figure.

George Orwell once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

David Stern fines players for not talking to the media after games, but will also fine them if they don't say what he wants them to. The prune-face megalomaniac, the sadistic ventriloquist, the totalitarian ruler, has now turned the NBA into an entity where the goal is profit first, integrity second. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to "preserve" (fabricate) its image, with the NBA cares programs, the hiring of new refs, the forcing of suits for street clothes, the assertion that headbands be NBA gear, the banning of straw-chewing, the prohibition of leggings, the expulsion of turtleneck sweaters on coaches, the rendering of bench-clearing policies, and now the censorship of thought. This midget of a man is an unequivocal, draconian control-freak.

Is this not unconstitutional? Hell, is it even humane? After the global fracas canonized by historians as World War II, an international conference was held to prevent a blood-spilling epoch as macabre as the second world war to occur again, in which they developed a declaration independent of national laws known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris, 1948. Amongst the 30 articles, which include provisions like the right to live and the right to equality, the 19th article reads, and I quote,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The right to speak freely is determined as notable and valuable as the right to live or live equally. Imagine that. Yet, even if freedom of speech wasn't part of the human rights movement, where does Hitler Stern come up with deciding the worth of expressing one's thoughts contradictory to the quota of the NBA anyway? Did he hire a mathematician from Cal Tech, or an economist from MIT to systematically determine that every dollar conjured up in the $35,000 handed from The Big Critic equally measured the significance of his critique? Every time he is about to decide a fining dollar figure for an athlete, does he make a phone call to Noam Chomsky discussing semantics, and then comes up to a conclusion of the fiscal value of each word spoken from the said athlete? Why not $50k? or $25k? or $34k? Hell why not just make it a million bucks all together? Its all about profit anyway right?

We would have to argue not only the morality of Hitler Stern's reign, but also the legalities of it. To arbitrarily determine the fining figure for an athlete, as well as when to hand out that fine from their interviews with media, does not seem to be anything short of a fascist system that is developing right under the nose of our supposed democratic American government. Then again, we are talking about the same American government that wants Julian Assange's head. Hitler Stern is watching you.

free speech doesn't apply when you are under contract brah, you gotta honor your contract and part of that is not criticizing officials....

S-Dot
12-28-2010, 11:12 AM
Death of free speech?

It's blatantly against the rules to publicly criticize the officials. You think Shaq didn't know that?

:clap::clap:Sucks that he got fined, but the guy has a point. They make these comments knowing they're more than likely going to be fined.

The Ooh Child
12-28-2010, 11:52 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=5960248

Blame 9/11. Blame Technology. Blame Capitalism. Whatever the reason, free speech is going the way of the dinosaur. And the further we move forward, the more truth becomes a form of espionage, an act of betrayal. Just ask Julian Assange. What he is doing, is what our grandfathers used to call "journalism", but now is being decried as "egotism" and a "political agenda". By his advocates, he's being christened as a revolutionary figure.

George Orwell once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

David Stern fines players for not talking to the media after games, but will also fine them if they don't say what he wants them to. The prune-face megalomaniac, the sadistic ventriloquist, the totalitarian ruler, has now turned the NBA into an entity where the goal is profit first, integrity second. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to "preserve" (fabricate) its image, with the NBA cares programs, the hiring of new refs, the forcing of suits for street clothes, the assertion that headbands be NBA gear, the banning of straw-chewing, the prohibition of leggings, the expulsion of turtleneck sweaters on coaches, the rendering of bench-clearing policies, and now the censorship of thought. This midget of a man is an unequivocal, draconian control-freak.

Is this not unconstitutional? Hell, is it even humane? After the global fracas canonized by historians as World War II, an international conference was held to prevent a blood-spilling epoch as macabre as the second world war to occur again, in which they developed a declaration independent of national laws known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris, 1948. Amongst the 30 articles, which include provisions like the right to live and the right to equality, the 19th article reads, and I quote,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The right to speak freely is determined as notable and valuable as the right to live or live equally. Imagine that. Yet, even if freedom of speech wasn't part of the human rights movement, where does Hitler Stern come up with deciding the worth of expressing one's thoughts contradictory to the quota of the NBA anyway? Did he hire a mathematician from Cal Tech, or an economist from MIT to systematically determine that every dollar conjured up in the $35,000 handed from The Big Critic equally measured the significance of his critique? Every time he is about to decide a fining dollar figure for an athlete, does he make a phone call to Noam Chomsky discussing semantics, and then comes up to a conclusion of the fiscal value of each word spoken from the said athlete? Why not $50k? or $25k? or $34k? Hell why not just make it a million bucks all together? Its all about profit anyway right?

We would have to argue not only the morality of Hitler Stern's reign, but also the legalities of it. To arbitrarily determine the fining figure for an athlete, as well as when to hand out that fine from their interviews with media, does not seem to be anything short of a fascist system that is developing right under the nose of our supposed democratic American government. Then again, we are talking about the same American government that wants Julian Assange's head. Hitler Stern is watching you.

I make around $58k per year. Shaq makes about $1.4 million. If my boss fined me $35k for criticizing one or our controlling officers, I couldn't even consider that Draconian.

And you comparing Stern to Hitler and Draco is almost as frivolous as Shaq's original complaint.

Shmontaine
12-28-2010, 01:21 PM
he doesn't have to pay the fine... and he won't go to jail... nor will he get deported or crucified...

he just can't be part of the NBA, the organization who pays him... wow, this is news??

ink
12-28-2010, 01:28 PM
Death of free speech?

It's blatantly against the rules to publicly criticize the officials. You think Shaq didn't know that?

Exactly. It's a business. Every business operates in exactly the same way regarding codes of behaviour, dress, and public comments by employees. Do people actually believe that someone from Wall Street has freedom to say anything they want? Hardly. Besides, it's not like we're missing out on anything important here. We're talking about Shaquille O'Neal, a lovable old clown, not someone who has any real insights.

TheHoopsProphet
12-28-2010, 01:35 PM
:clap::clap:Sucks that he got fined, but the guy has a point. They make these comments knowing they're more than likely going to be fined.

On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X walked onto a stage to give a speech in a ballroom in Manhattan, knowing well that he was going to be shot. He kept giving speeches in spite of the numerous death threats handed to him. On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson paraded onto the field as the Brooklyn Dodgers' second baseman knowing full well he was going to be harassed, heckled, spit on, thrown to, etc. But he walked onto that field knowing he had to do it. Julian Assange released over 400,000 Wikileaks reports knowing that his freedom and life was at stake. He was sent to jail by British parliament, in a cell shared with child-rapists, he lost a tooth in there, and was only released on his expensive bail due to donations made by celebrities and moguls advocating his cause. He continues to threaten transparency, specifically exposure of bank CEOs, that would all but see them spend the rest of their lives in jail, and he continues doing this in spite of jeopardizing his life (which will surely be ended if he continues).

Rules are implemented, laws are created all to be obeyed towards. But as Timothy Leary famously stated, "Think for yourself, question authority." Don't follow the order because it has been created, follow it because you think its right. Flamingos stand on one foot only because they react to the other flamingos standing on one foot. You're not a flamingo, are you?

thekmp211
12-28-2010, 01:37 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=5960248

Blame 9/11. Blame Technology. Blame Capitalism. Whatever the reason, free speech is going the way of the dinosaur. And the further we move forward, the more truth becomes a form of espionage, an act of betrayal. Just ask Julian Assange. What he is doing, is what our grandfathers used to call "journalism", but now is being decried as "egotism" and a "political agenda". By his advocates, he's being christened as a revolutionary figure.

George Orwell once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

David Stern fines players for not talking to the media after games, but will also fine them if they don't say what he wants them to. The prune-face megalomaniac, the sadistic ventriloquist, the totalitarian ruler, has now turned the NBA into an entity where the goal is profit first, integrity second. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to "preserve" (fabricate) its image, with the NBA cares programs, the hiring of new refs, the forcing of suits for street clothes, the assertion that headbands be NBA gear, the banning of straw-chewing, the prohibition of leggings, the expulsion of turtleneck sweaters on coaches, the rendering of bench-clearing policies, and now the censorship of thought. This midget of a man is an unequivocal, draconian control-freak.

Is this not unconstitutional? Hell, is it even humane? After the global fracas canonized by historians as World War II, an international conference was held to prevent a blood-spilling epoch as macabre as the second world war to occur again, in which they developed a declaration independent of national laws known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris, 1948. Amongst the 30 articles, which include provisions like the right to live and the right to equality, the 19th article reads, and I quote,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The right to speak freely is determined as notable and valuable as the right to live or live equally. Imagine that. Yet, even if freedom of speech wasn't part of the human rights movement, where does Hitler Stern come up with deciding the worth of expressing one's thoughts contradictory to the quota of the NBA anyway? Did he hire a mathematician from Cal Tech, or an economist from MIT to systematically determine that every dollar conjured up in the $35,000 handed from The Big Critic equally measured the significance of his critique? Every time he is about to decide a fining dollar figure for an athlete, does he make a phone call to Noam Chomsky discussing semantics, and then comes up to a conclusion of the fiscal value of each word spoken from the said athlete? Why not $50k? or $25k? or $34k? Hell why not just make it a million bucks all together? Its all about profit anyway right?

We would have to argue not only the morality of Hitler Stern's reign, but also the legalities of it. To arbitrarily determine the fining figure for an athlete, as well as when to hand out that fine from their interviews with media, does not seem to be anything short of a fascist system that is developing right under the nose of our supposed democratic American government. Then again, we are talking about the same American government that wants Julian Assange's head. Hitler Stern is watching you.



dude we get it. you go to college. enough with the diatribes.

shaq broke the rules. he knew he was breaking the rules and he knew he was getting fined. is it a little stringent? yeah probably. but the NBA is not a society of free people. it's a collection of paid employees bound to contracts that they willingly signed. end of story.

ink
12-28-2010, 01:37 PM
This is a basketball forum. Should we talk about basketball or should the thread be closed. Right now it is just a meandering thread that isn't paying any attention at all to the basketball topic that began it. Either it's about Shaq or it's not.

tredigs
12-28-2010, 01:39 PM
The fact that HoopsProphet is blatantly off-base and predictably pseudo-enraged aside, I was laughing that Shaq still thinks he's "one of the best players in the NBA". His ego knows no boundaries, and it's great.

edit:
@Hoops. Free speech is very much alive, but if you're contractually obligated to maintain a certain level of discretion when discussing fellow employees of the NBA negatively in public, then you're going to face a fine for said statements. They're multi-millionaires, it is quite fair.

TheHoopsProphet
12-28-2010, 01:39 PM
he doesn't have to pay the fine... and he won't go to jail... nor will he get deported or crucified...

he just can't be part of the NBA, the organization who pays him... wow, this is news??

Grousbeck is the one responsible for Shaq's paychecks.

Flash3
12-28-2010, 01:41 PM
Stern is stern, stern but fair.

Malz28
12-28-2010, 01:45 PM
So many people are saying that it is against the rules for players to talk bad about the NBA. So now the NBA runs the government? The 1st amendment is the 1st amendment no matter how you slice it. Freedom of speech right? NBA needs to get over themselves because they are coming close to being the worst run sport in sports!

TheHoopsProphet
12-28-2010, 01:47 PM
This is a basketball forum. Should we talk about basketball or should the thread be closed. Right now it is just a meandering thread that isn't paying any attention at all to the basketball topic that began it. Either it's about Shaq or it's not.

Why must topics be addressed so linearly? The thread has a clear and concise point to it: the structures of NBA policy and what it insinuates both from a moral, political, and sociological perspective. Shaq's fine is a nice anecdote which can be viewed as an emblematic case of the overall freedom under Hitler Stern's NBA.

ink
12-28-2010, 01:48 PM
So many people are saying that it is against the rules for players to talk bad about the NBA. So now the NBA runs the government? The 1st amendment is the 1st amendment no matter how you slice it. Freedom of speech right? NBA needs to get over themselves because they are coming close to being the worst run sport in sports!

This isn't unique to the NBA. All businesses have codes of behaviour set in place for employees. If you're an employee you are obliged to follow the rules set by your employer. Same thing that applies to someone who works at Ford or Staples also applies to someone who works in the NBA or for Dreamworks. Complete non-issue.

ink
12-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Why must topics be addressed so linearly? The thread has a clear and concise point to it: the structures of NBA policy and what it insinuates both from a moral, political, and sociological perspective. Shaq's fine is a nice anecdote which can be viewed as an emblematic case of the overall freedom under Hitler Stern's NBA.

It's a sports forum. And Shaq's fine is not a "nice anecdote" symbolic of any tyranny. It's just a loudmouth employee who got the same fine that anyone from Wall Street or Kodak or General Foods or Boeing would get. He knows the rules. It's no bigger, and no more draconian than any other code of behaviour for any other business. There's no need for the hyperbole or confused social commentary.

tredigs
12-28-2010, 01:54 PM
So many people are saying that it is against the rules for players to talk bad about the NBA. So now the NBA runs the government? The 1st amendment is the 1st amendment no matter how you slice it. Freedom of speech right? NBA needs to get over themselves because they are coming close to being the worst run sport in sports!

Go start making public statements to your local paper about how you're treated unfairly by your controlling officers, foreman, tax-auditors, whatever. See how long that lasts before you are reprimanded. Get a VISA and try it in another nation while you're at it. It's not going to work out well dude...

Having a job in the NBA isn't an inalienable right offered to you by as an American citizen. It's a job; one that you're under contract for. And when you sign a contract where YOU AGREE to THEIR RULES, what makes you think you can break them without any sort of disciplinary action? He's lucky he plays in the NBA. In almost any other profession he'd be flat out canned.

There are formal procedures to make complaints in the NBA, and I can guarantee that *****in' on live television to the media after you made 6 blatant fouls in a game and want to attack the refs for it is not the correct one.

TheHoopsProphet
12-28-2010, 01:56 PM
This isn't unique to the NBA. All businesses have codes of behaviour set in place for employees. If you're an employee you are obliged to follow the rules set by your employer. Same thing that applies to someone who works at Ford or Staples also applies to someone who works in the NBA or for Dreamworks. Complete non-issue.

That is a reductive argument, you are oversimplifying the unique case of the NBA. All businesses are not alike. After an office worker gets out of his cubicle, does he get interviewed by the media regarding how he felt about the day's work? Besides, if he has a coworker the he feels is not allowing him to fully commit himself to his job, is he not allowed to mention this to his boss? And businesses do indeed have their own standard of codes and behavior, but businesses are not immune to the laws constructed under the government they operate under. If a business is not fairly treating its workers, they are allowed to be legally reviewed.

jetsfan28
12-28-2010, 01:57 PM
free speech doesn't apply when you are under contract brah, you gotta honor your contract and part of that is not criticizing officials....

Such a long and heartfelt post, yet it was sufficiently answered by a post containing "brah" :pity:

thekmp211
12-28-2010, 01:57 PM
Go start making public statements to your local paper about how you're treated unfairly by your controlling officers, foreman, tax-auditors, whatever. See how long that lasts before you are reprimanded. Get a VISA and try it in another nation while you're at it. It's not going to work out well dude...

Having a job in the NBA isn't an inalienable right offered to you by as an American citizen. It's a job; one that you're under contract for. And when you sign a contract where YOU AGREE to THEIR RULES, what makes you think you can break them without any sort of disciplinary action? He's lucky he plays in the NBA. In almost any other profession he'd be flat out canned.

There are formal procedures to make complaints in the NBA, and I can guarantee that *****in' on live television to the media after you made 6 blatant fouls in a game and want to attack the refs for it is not the correct one.

bingo

tredigs
12-28-2010, 02:03 PM
That is a reductive argument, you are oversimplifying the unique case of the NBA. All businesses are not alike. After an office worker gets out of his cubicle, does he get interviewed by the media regarding how he felt about the day's work? Besides, if he has a coworker the he feels is not allowing him to fully commit himself to his job, is he not allowed to mention this to his boss? And businesses do indeed have their own standard of codes and behavior, but businesses are not immune to the laws constructed under the government they operate under. If a business is not fairly treating its workers, they are allowed to be legally reviewed.

Take some courses in contract law along with your business ethics and sociology, it's going to do you a world of good in this world.

It doesn't matter that the NBA players are interviewed and other workers of this world are not. They have formal procedures to deal with complaints just as any other company does. What good does it to do cry publicly (especially being that he was off-base in his comments)?

Beyond that, where do you draw the line? Can he call Stern a flaming coward and the refs Gestapo disciples? Should that not be reprimanded as well?

You are so blatantly wrong here dude. He signed the contract, he knows the rules. He acted this way in spite of them, and I'm sure willfully expected the fine he received to make his point (regardless of how dumb it was). End of discussion.

thekmp211
12-28-2010, 02:04 PM
That is a reductive argument, you are oversimplifying the unique case of the NBA. All businesses are not alike. After an office worker gets out of his cubicle, does he get interviewed by the media regarding how he felt about the day's work? Besides, if he has a coworker the he feels is not allowing him to fully commit himself to his job, is he not allowed to mention this to his boss? And businesses do indeed have their own standard of codes and behavior, but businesses are not immune to the laws constructed under the government they operate under. If a business is not fairly treating its workers, they are allowed to be legally reviewed.

see, now you're starting to go in circles.

media aside, plenty of company's have rules about public conduct, centered around representing the business in a positive light.

other businesses may not have the option of the media as an outlet, but just like the NBA there are plenty of legitimate ways to have your concerns heard.

what shaq did is not akin to mentioning to your boss a problem with a coworker that is impacting your performance. it was more like talking to EVERYONE in the office about how much of a scrub this guy is and how he's getting in your way. It's, oh what's the word, unprofessional.

as for unfair treatment? if you have the nerve to make millions of dollars and then complain about rules YOU agreed to in the contract YOU signed, then you don't deserve to be in the position you are in.

again, i dont think any of the players will tell you they feel the rules against criticizing officials is unfair. annoying? Sure. but not unfair. i've never heard that before.

so, no, this is just like any other business. it's public, but a business.

Bornknick73
12-28-2010, 02:05 PM
Give them some time....at the rate our country is going Assange will be labeled a traitor and executed for compromising National Security.

As for Big Daddy Diesel he should know better by now.

ink
12-28-2010, 02:06 PM
That is a reductive argument, you are oversimplifying the unique case of the NBA. All businesses are not alike. After an office worker gets out of his cubicle, does he get interviewed by the media regarding how he felt about the day's work?

And for that reason professional athletes are given explicit instructions not to badmouth the league that pays their salary. Any business with any need for internal discipline has these rules.


Besides, if he has a coworker the he feels is not allowing him to fully commit himself to his job, is he not allowed to mention this to his boss?

Exactly. He goes directly (or through an agent) to his boss. That's how the protocol works and that's why many athletes and coaches before him have been fined in exactly the same way. If he has a complaint he can make it professionally and discreetly, not publicly to the media. Criticizing officiating is such a superficial problem anyway, hardly a human rights issue. We're talking about entertainment here, not life or death.


And businesses do indeed have their own standard of codes and behavior, but businesses are not immune to the laws constructed under the government they operate under. If a business is not fairly treating its workers, they are allowed to be legally reviewed.

Look, every athlete in the league has an agent. A lot of them are lawyers. Every team in the league has lawyers. This is silly. If there was anything truly unconstitutional about their contracts they would not sign them in the first place. Like tredigs has said, they agreed to these terms when they signed their LEGAL contracts. Shaq is not the first person to get fined for spouting off to the press, and this is not a human rights issue. It's about a loudmouth guy who is past his prime complaining about officiating in an entertainment league. And the references to Hitler are naive. Do we really want to compare the extermination of millions of lives to the fining of a clown?

The Ooh Child
12-28-2010, 02:08 PM
Why must topics be addressed so linearly? The thread has a clear and concise point to it: the structures of NBA policy and what it insinuates both from a moral, political, and sociological perspective. Shaq's fine is a nice anecdote which can be viewed as an emblematic case of the overall freedom under Hitler Stern's NBA.

You're trying to make it sound like Stern is reversing years of social progress, because he fined one of the biggest loudmouths in the league for being a loudmouth. Stern's policies really have no social impact. This particular policy only impacts the men who contractually agreed to not publicly criticize league referees.

This is either a sincere and severe overdramatization of an extremely simple and non-controversial matter or an elaborate troll job from someone who is way too bored.

ink
12-28-2010, 02:09 PM
Give them some time....at the rate our country is going Assange will be labeled a traitor and executed for compromising National Security.

As for Big Daddy Diesel he should know better by now.

I bet he was the same as any other guy that gets fined by a league. He probably went, "well, this is going to cost me, but WTF, I'm mad". He said his piece knowing he'd be paying a fine. Not likely a big deal to him.

S-Dot
12-28-2010, 02:11 PM
On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X walked onto a stage to give a speech in a ballroom in Manhattan, knowing well that he was going to be shot. He kept giving speeches in spite of the numerous death threats handed to him. On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson paraded onto the field as the Brooklyn Dodgers' second baseman knowing full well he was going to be harassed, heckled, spit on, thrown to, etc. But he walked onto that field knowing he had to do it. Julian Assange released over 400,000 Wikileaks reports knowing that his freedom and life was at stake. He was sent to jail by British parliament, in a cell shared with child-rapists, he lost a tooth in there, and was only released on his expensive bail due to donations made by celebrities and moguls advocating his cause. He continues to threaten transparency, specifically exposure of bank CEOs, that would all but see them spend the rest of their lives in jail, and he continues doing this in spite of jeopardizing his life (which will surely be ended if he continues).

Rules are implemented, laws are created all to be obeyed towards. But as Timothy Leary famously stated, "Think for yourself, question authority." Don't follow the order because it has been created, follow it because you think its right. Flamingos stand on one foot only because they react to the other flamingos standing on one foot. You're not a flamingo, are you?

I respect your passion towards the topic, but I was talking about Shaq and the NBA officials. The Malcolm X and Jackie Robinson comparisons aren't quite the same.

Malz28
12-28-2010, 02:15 PM
Go start making public statements to your local paper about how you're treated unfairly by your controlling officers, foreman, tax-auditors, whatever. See how long that lasts before you are reprimanded. Get a VISA and try it in another nation while you're at it. It's not going to work out well dude...

Having a job in the NBA isn't an inalienable right offered to you by as an American citizen. It's a job; one that you're under contract for. And when you sign a contract where YOU AGREE to THEIR RULES, what makes you think you can break them without any sort of disciplinary action? He's lucky he plays in the NBA. In almost any other profession he'd be flat out canned.

There are formal procedures to make complaints in the NBA, and I can guarantee that *****in' on live television to the media after you made 6 blatant fouls in a game and want to attack the refs for it is not the correct one.

So then start firing players then! You want to make them have a dress code, not talk bad about the company. That's sounds like a real 9 to 5 to me and at a real 9 to 5 you would be fired! But of course that won't happen because the players make the money for the league. Yes they make money for themselves, but no players no NBA. If I'm making you millions, I'm going to say whatever the **** I want to say.

TheHoopsProphet
12-28-2010, 02:18 PM
Go start making public statements to your local paper about how you're treated unfairly by your controlling officers, foreman, tax-auditors, whatever. See how long that lasts before you are reprimanded. Get a VISA and try it in another nation while you're at it. It's not going to work out well dude...

Having a job in the NBA isn't an inalienable right offered to you by as an American citizen. It's a job; one that you're under contract for. And when you sign a contract where YOU AGREE to THEIR RULES, what makes you think you can break them without any sort of disciplinary action? He's lucky he plays in the NBA. In almost any other profession he'd be flat out canned.

There are formal procedures to make complaints in the NBA, and I can guarantee that *****in' on live television to the media after you made 6 blatant fouls in a game and want to attack the refs for it is not the correct one.

A compelling counterpoint ol' chap, but you are still missing a crucial detail. You see, you are correct in a sense that contracts are to be honored (a rare activity exercised by contemporary athletes), and these rules implemented by the NBA should be followed so long as you are being payed by them. Of course, if the NBA started making NBA player play in only NBA-sponsored underwear, they might have a right to make a formal complaint, because that's called indecent exposure. Just as censoring players thoughts is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Businesses are not above the law. And even in the event where it was legal to force citizens to constricted, edited thoughts and make them walk around in underwear, the NBA still is disobeying the players union.

Under the contract they signed, does the NBA state that in their running of the league, they will be fixing games in the name of profit? Does the contract state that if you are not a superstar player, you will be judged more strictly by the refs. Does the contract state that they will be giving leniency to the more marketable teams? Because if it does state that in their policy, in the contract that they signed, then the Hitler Stern and the NBA is right in what theyre doing.

ink
12-28-2010, 02:18 PM
So then start firing players then! You want to make them have a dress code, not talk bad about the company. That's sounds like a real 9 to 5 to me and at a real 9 to 5 you would be fired! But of course that won't happen because the players make the money for the league. Yes they make money for themselves, but no players no NBA. If I'm making you millions, I'm going to say whatever the **** I want to say.

Do you think this is the first time a player has been fined by a sports league for mouthing off? :confused:

ink
12-28-2010, 02:21 PM
You're trying to make it sound like Stern is reversing years of social progress, because he fined one of the biggest loudmouths in the league for being a loudmouth. Stern's policies really have no social impact. This particular policy only impacts the men who contractually agreed to not publicly criticize league referees.

This is either a sincere and severe overdramatization of an extremely simple and non-controversial matter or an elaborate troll job from someone who is way too bored.

.


A compelling counterpoint ol' chap, but you are still missing a crucial detail. You see, you are correct in a sense that contracts are to be honored (a rare activity exercised by contemporary athletes), and these rules implemented by the NBA should be followed so long as you are being payed by them. Of course, if the NBA started making NBA player play in only NBA-sponsored underwear, they might have a right to make a formal complaint, because that's called indecent exposure. Just as censoring players thoughts is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Businesses are not above the law. And even in the event where it was legal to force citizens to constricted, edited thoughts and make them walk around in underwear, the NBA still is disobeying the players union.

Under the contract they signed, does the NBA state that in their running of the league, they will be fixing games in the name of profit? Does the contract state that if you are not a superstar player, you will be judged more strictly by the refs. Does the contract state that they will be giving leniency to the more marketable teams? Because if it does state that in their policy, in the contract that they signed, then the Hitler Stern and the NBA is right in what theyre doing.

This is pretty clearly trolling.