https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cam-newton-loses-dannon-endorsement-162219689.html
Let's hope this touches off another round of kneeling.
-
Features
Another QB loses job for exercising free speech rights
- Thread starter dismal
- Start date
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cam-newton-loses-dannon-endorsement-162219689.html
Let's hope this touches off another round of kneeling.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
This thread is racist against yeast infections.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Cam is right, this girl just read out the question written down for her by a male. No wonder he couldn't keep a straight face.
untermensche
Contributor
He has a contract. Had one.
Not a natural right to Dannon's money.
Not a natural right to Dannon's money.
So, you're taking the Trump position. Siding with the big corporation over the noble Black QB and his free speech rights upon which we built America.
Derec
Contributor
But there is a natural right to NFL money for Kaep et al?
Or is it the content of their speech that leads you to the different conclusion?
untermensche
Contributor
What did Kaepernick do?
He knelt silently.
He showed more respect than most.
How is that a violation of his contract?
You'll notice he was not fired.
Just blackballed.
So you're OK with Black QB's exercising their free speech rights as long as they kneel quietly and show respect?
Derec
Contributor
You are saying there is no natural right to Dannon money. Well there is no natural right to NFL money either. So why are you so upset about Kaep and ok with Newton?
untermensche
Contributor
Your free speech right does not shield you from the contractual consequences of deliberate rudeness.
How was Kaepernick rude or disrespectful?
I know a lot of Neanderthals said he was.
My copy of the Constitution lacks the "deliberate rudeness" qualifier in the text of the 1st Amendment.
Are you sure it's in there?
untermensche
Contributor
The Constitution says the government cannot create consequences for speech.
Nothing about a private enterprises and their spokespeople.
Derec
Contributor
Like NFL tams?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Situations are not equivalent. Dannon is not a monopoly, nor is this the guy's primary job, but even so I haven't heard his own explanation and the comments seem kind of mild.
I think he might have miscommunicated what his point was. Empirically, what he said may be true. It's funny (odd) to see a woman interviewing about a technical sports question dominated by men and his point may have been that he welcomed it. Who knows without asking him? To conclude automatically that it was disparaging might be jumping.
So, I think the problem is one of sensitivity and it was a teachable moment that failed to teach. So, he might be asked how he would feel if he were in those same shoes as her and someone said, "It's funny to see a Black man as a quarterback." Would he be taken aback at first? Proper response might be "Sorry, I didn't mean it to come out that way. What I meant is that it's uncommon and I think it's great."
He could have learned something and apologized. Dannon could have been more forgiving about it, if so.
On the other hand, without his explanation, I also cannot be sure he wasn't being disparaging, saying it was humorous because of the inherent qualities and characteristics that make womanhood etc...,
I think he might have miscommunicated what his point was. Empirically, what he said may be true. It's funny (odd) to see a woman interviewing about a technical sports question dominated by men and his point may have been that he welcomed it. Who knows without asking him? To conclude automatically that it was disparaging might be jumping.
So, I think the problem is one of sensitivity and it was a teachable moment that failed to teach. So, he might be asked how he would feel if he were in those same shoes as her and someone said, "It's funny to see a Black man as a quarterback." Would he be taken aback at first? Proper response might be "Sorry, I didn't mean it to come out that way. What I meant is that it's uncommon and I think it's great."
He could have learned something and apologized. Dannon could have been more forgiving about it, if so.
On the other hand, without his explanation, I also cannot be sure he wasn't being disparaging, saying it was humorous because of the inherent qualities and characteristics that make womanhood etc...,
Oh, OK.
untermensche
Contributor
What was rude or disrespectful in anything Kaepernick did?
Show me this "rude" behavior.
Is there a national catechism regarding football and the national anthem?
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah. You are full of shit.
Don't worry the Constitution protects me.
My copy of the Constitution lacks both the "not a monopoly" and "not his primary job" qualifiers to the 1st Amendment. Are you sure they are in there?
untermensche
Contributor
The Constitution is not a document that protects Dannon spokespeople from contractual consequences.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, they're not in there and neither are machine guns. I guess your Founding Fathers weren't as smart as you thought.
Well, I did just agree with something you said so it's a high likelihood.
- - - Updated - - -
My copy does not have this "Dannon spokespeople" qualifier either.