11 ms·

>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the West

• i_am_nomad 8y ago
  Though it may occasionally seem so, the NFL is not a government organization.
  • ceejayoz 8y ago
    That makes it more of a free speech issue for the government to be meddling in its employer/employee interactions, not less.
    • lolpython 8y ago
      The government doesn't meddle in the NFL. The NFL issued the bans
      • ceejayoz 8y ago
        That's plainly false. "NFL execs admit pressure from Trump a factor on anthem policy": https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/24/nfl-execs-admit-pressure-from-trump-a-factor-on-anthem-policy/ https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/24/nfl-execs-a... "Trump says U.S. should change tax law to punish NFL": http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20978787/president-donald-trump-says-us-change-tax-law-punish-nfl http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20978787/president-donald... "The report found the Department of Defense had spent $6.8 million on what they called 'paid patriotism' between 2012 and 2015. This money was spread out among 50 pro teams from the NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, MLS and others.": https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl-national-anthem-trump-kaepernick-history-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl-national-anthem-trump-...
        • lolpython 8y ago
          Thanks for the correction, you are right. I did not read the OP clearly enough, and thought they were arguing the government issued the ban.
        • isoskeles 8y ago
          Interesting, although I can't say I care much about the fate of these organizations that accepted money from the DoD. Accepting payments for allowing these patriotic displays is, IMO, a sort of deal with the devil (I don't actually think the U.S. is the devil). This sounds even less of an issue of government abridging free speech and more like the NFL breaching contract.
• tomcam 8y ago
  Oddly, no. It is not a euphemism. It is a form of free speech, period.
• andyv 8y ago
  If you want to run for office, how else do you tell the voters what you want to do, and why they should vote for you?
  • cle 8y ago
    Is this a serious comment? How do we communicate without advertisements? This is depressing.
    • softwaredoug 8y ago
      Why is political speech a different category than other forms of speech? Think of the plausible scenario of a certain Presidents FEC deciding friendly speech isn’t “political” (it’s “patriotic”!) But critical speech is clearly political and should be regulated.
      • esturk 8y ago
        Thanks. Your above says advertisement, you said speech. Thats a big difference. Advertisement can be regulated which is the focus of this thread. No one is saying to regulate some speech in a rally but is said speech is reshape as some advertisment then they should be regulated.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • k_sh 8y ago
          For the purposes of American law, "speech" is defined very broadly. It can apply to burning an American flag[0], plans for 3-D printed guns[1], and even bombmaking instructions[2]. Our Supreme Court has decided that corporations spending money[3], even in politics[4], is speech as well. The O'Brien test[5] is generally used to tell whether a law encroaches on 1A rights. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson [1]: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2018/07/10/doj-second-amendment-foundation-reach-settlement-in-defense-distributed-lawsuit/ http://joshblackman.com/blog/2018/07/10/doj-second-amendment... [2]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/archive/abi.htm http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/archive/abi.htm [3]: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/advertising-first-amendment-overview/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... [4]: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v... [5]: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obrientest.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obrient...
• raoulj 8y ago
  While well-intentioned, Germany certainly does not.
• kingofhdds 8y ago
  >It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. In practical applications, EU countries do not place FoS to the same position of unalienable right as it is in the US. So, not "as much".
• softwaredoug 8y ago
  The landscape has swung heavily to smaller donors dominating fundraising. The $5 I gave Beto doesn’t mean he’s going to let me dictate anything he does in his political career.
• lozaning 8y ago
  >It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. This is a laughable claim once one considers blasphemy laws that still exist in many western democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447 - Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments [2017]
  • vmlinuz 8y ago
    Not the greatest example, to be honest, since: a) the very article you linked states "...no publicised cases of blasphemy have been brought before the courts since the law was introduced in 2009 and a source said it was "highly unlikely" that a prosecution against Fry would take place." - and indeed, the case was dropped after an investigation found, effectively, that not enough people were offended to be worth proceeding... and b) earlier this week "voters overwhelming[ly] supported a referendum to remove [blasphemy] as an offence in Irish law." [0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46010077 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46010077
  • elteto 8y ago
    And this just happened: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedophile-not-protected-by-free-speech-1.3678825 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedo...
  • lozenge 8y ago
    There are plenty of anti free speech laws and precedent in the US as well, you just have to look for them. Only if you accept the exact American definition of free speech, then of course other countries look bad by that standard.
    • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      And there's starving/malnourished kids in the US too. That doesn't mean the US is on par with some parts of Africa in that regard. Generally speaking anti free speech laws in the US get struck down as soon as they start getting used to prosecute people.
• everybodyknows 8y ago
  Apparently counterexamples are needed: https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749 https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-d...
• oh_sigh 8y ago
  Kaepernick is banned from the NFL in the same sense I am - no team wants him because he isn't good enough for the price he wants.
  • josefresco 8y ago
    False. 50% of the current starting QB's are trash. Kaepernick has proven success.
    • oh_sigh 8y ago
      First, I said that he wasn't good enough for what he wanted, not that he just isn't good enough. Second, it isn't like Kaepernick is a hotshot quarterback. He is thoroughly middling. Kaepernick had a standout couple of games in the playoffs, but otherwise he was looking at qb ratings of high 70s to low 90s. Not horrible but really just run of the mill.
• manigandham 8y ago
  Absolutely not. Advertising is not bribery and the European region is nowhere near the freedom of speech principles of the US. It may feel the same, either because you have never said anything or have never been heard by anyone who cares, but there are countless examples of prosecution that would be summarily dismissed here in the States. Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. Athletes can do whatever they want, however they are still employees and if they want to enjoy their multi-million dollar salaries then they will need to follow the rules of their employer and the sports leagues. You will not be punished by the government for what you say, but you are not entitled to a job without consequences either.
  • coffeemug 8y ago
    > Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. This line of reasoning never made sense to me. Free speech is both a legal and a cultural issue. A modern society cannot credibly claim to be free on legal grounds alone. Yeah, the government won't put me in prison or fine me, but if I get fired for being a staunch liberal (or conservative) then I'm not really free, am I? This doesn't just apply to rich athletes -- in most organizations in SF I would not feel particularly safe expressing what seem to me fairly moderate views. Depriving people of their livelihood for expressing political views is absolutely a free speech issue. Perhaps not in a legal/constitutional sense, but a cultural sense for sure. There were plenty of stretches in the Soviet Union where they wouldn't imprison you, but would fire you for a poorly timed political joke. Starting down that cultural slope is a really bad idea.
    • mmmBacon 8y ago
      The US Constitution also codifies freedom of association so you can have free speech but you can’t force me to associate with you. In the US companies have freedom of association as long as they don’t violate a protected class ( race, religion, sex, age, national origin, etc...). Since you the government can’t force a company to associate with someone they disagree with, you can be fired for things you say.
      • 8y ago
• ekianjo 8y ago
  Europeans have bureaucrats in Brussels who are not elected by anyone. Thats way worse than allowing some dose of political advertising, as a whole. As for Freedom of Speech, several European countries have actually very specific limitations on what one can say, while such restrictions are way lower in the US. Plus, the US has a strong constitution on that matter, while in Europe depending on the country it is certainly not as clearly written down.
  • Retra 8y ago
    There are many positions in the US that are not elected positions. When's the last time you voted for a supreme court justice?
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • ekianjo 8y ago
      Bureaucrats make laws in Europe. The Supreme court does not. Big difference.
      • nradov 8y ago
        The Supreme Court absolutely does legislate from the bench. For example, regardless of how one feels about abortion rights, the famous Roe v. Wade case essentially invented a new law with no explicit Constitutional foundation.
      • eftychis 8y ago
        Actually, the U.S. follows the Common Law system in contrast with the majority of other countries (most of E.U. follows Civil Law). In that system the justice system participates in the shaping of law as it acts as an interpreter of the law and establishes precedent (you might have heard the term case law also [0]). Thus, as you are well aware, law is developed by their decisions and interpretations of the Supreme Court, and other lower courts. For instance, Arizona v. Gant, Roe v. Wade. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
• gnicholas 8y ago
  > It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. In light of this recent EU case, I would tend to disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
  • stordoff 8y ago
    The ECtHr is not the EU, and this only means that the supranational court did not override national law, as the states are given a wide margin of appreciation: > [Freedom of expression] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
• skookumchuck 8y ago
  Holocaust denying is a crime in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial