“Treason”? “Sedition”? :rolleyes: Don’t get yer knickers in a knot, ladies!
And what exactly, may I ask, is “bridge-related community service”?
Ummm…What?
Yeah, I see that a lot. Statements that boil down to “I believe in free speech, unless somebody actually practices it.”
Read: “While I believe in the right to free speech, that only applies to people that say things that I agree with.”
I believe in free speech, but “free speech” doesn’t immunize me from the consequences of exercising my right to free speech when representing a non-political organization of which I am a member.
In other words: the United States Bridge Federation does not strike me as unreasonable for demanding that their representatives eschew political commentary during publicity for official bridge events.
This is not an encroachment on the right of “free speech” as that right is generally understood. The players were there representing the organization, the event, as opposed to being there in their own persons. The organization can reasonably require that they limit their commentary to event-related platitudes, and can enforce that requirement by whatever sanctions are in their legal power to levy.
I will say that “treason” and “sedition” are charges that are over-the-top… but of course the United States Bridge Federation is not making such charges.
Getting kicked out of some douchebag, Republican housewives’ bridge club? Oh, no, not that, anything but that. :rolleyes:
The statement “I believe in free speech but…” is one of those prefaces like “I’m not a racist/sexist/homophobe but…” It will always be immediately followed by a statement which directly contradicts the preface.
My god, do I disagree with you. First of all - was it in the rules anywhere, that they can’t espouse a political stand? If it was in the rules already, and they knew it, I’ll buy it. But otherwise they’re just springing a little surprise. What would have been the reaction if they said "WE VOTED FOR BUSH’…would that have been ok?
Secondly, on a broader scale, I would argue that is exactly why we got away from monarchy! So that we could criticize our leader without implicitly being felt to be accusing our country.
:smack: :smack:
I’m sure you can point me to specific rules of the organization they broke? I didn’t notice any in the rather long article on this matter in the Times yesterday. Also, as I understand it, they were competing. While they are members, I do not believe they were acting as official representatives in the sense of a representative to a world body of bridge organizations.
Yes, but does the United States Bridge Federation have rules *in place * that covers this?
The suspension affect these women’s ability to earn a living. Yes, they earn thier living playing contract bridge. To come out and say, well some people complained so no work for you, two years, is absurd.
The Federation has heard complaints from members. Their response reflects what they thing of those complaints. I interrpet their response as agreeing with the complaints.
That isn’t what the guy said. he said, “While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event.”
As a matter of fact, they DO have the right criticize the President anywhere they want. They may not have the right to continue being members of the card club (which…who cares anyway) but it was incorrect for Mr. Wolff to say they didn’t have the right to say what they said.
I don’t believe anyone has claimed their rights have been infringed. Only that the club has its “knickers in a knot,” that the statement of Mr.Woff regarding his belief in free speech is self-contradictory and that “sedition” and “treason” are over the top (if predictable) accusations.
The reason she “sprang her little surprise” was that the US players were sensing an unprecedented level of coldness from other players, and felt they were being blamed for the actions of the administration. Plus, if I read the article in the Times right, the sign went up while they were singing the Star Spangled Banner, and while many of them had flags (though I didn’t see any flags in the picture.)
Plus, the message was not that all bridge players did not vote for Bush, or even that Bush is evil, or that the federation had one stand or another. It was a statement that was purely personal.
And yes, a sign saying they voted for Bush in similar circumstance would have been okay.
As others have said though, it doesn’t appear that that was the official policy of the organization. The rule that is cited is “conduct unbecoming a member” which I suppose might be defined as “no political signs” somewhere, but I doubt it.
Bridge is for old people.
No, you can’t have it both ways. Either it is Ok to bring politics into this, in which case, as long as you do it civilly and politely, you can say anything, or it’s not OK, in which case cut out all of the goddamn political crap and keep it solely “USA! USA! USA!”
I agree with Bricker, but not from a legal standpoint, but from an ethics (?) one…
I would not have been in favor of anti-Bush political signs any more than anti-abortion signs being displayed at a bridge event. That is not what the event was about.
The idea behind these kind of international (“sporting”) events is to show that we can put aside our differences and enjoy a common interest. (In this case, a game of cards.) An opportunity to forget about the stresses of politics, if you will.
That sign jars folks back to the differences that divide us, not bring us together.
If you want to make some public statement, do it on your own time (like during the parties afterwards, not at the official awards ceremony).
I don’t think that it falls to the level of treason, or criminality, just poor taste.
And, even though they may compete as individual players, they still are acting as representitives of the U.S. Bridge Federation, since that is the folks that the Federation publicly submitted as competitors for the event.
So the Federation does have an interest in how these players publicly present themselves, as it will reflect on them. (For example: let’s speculate: The event was held in Shanghai, China. What if one of the ladies held up a signage supporting the protesters at Tiananmen Square? The Chinese government could then refuse the Federation entry into the country for next years competition.)
Oh, lord, I dread this pile-on — all the Dopers descending at once to explain that freedom of speech restricts Congress and not bridge clubs. I bet it’ll begin any time now.
Ok, I can see your point. But my point is, you need to put it in the rules before you can go punishing people!
I’d be happy to, Lib, if I had the slightest idea what you’re talkilng about. Perhaps if you could explain to me what I’m just about to say, I could say it.
Absolutely not. A organization that acts in political advocacy should be able to enforce such a lopsided rule, but a non-political organization should be able to enforce only a non-political prohibition: don’t make political statements while engaged in representing our organization. That gives you a fair warning and a fair chance to be political on your own dime, while not stealing the publicity that is focused on you by virtue of your organzation’s efforts.
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing our leader. The “wrong” here comes from doing it while the cameras are trained on you as the result of the work and resources of an organization that’s asked you not to criticize or praise political figures.
Now, you ask: is it in the rules already? That’s a key question. My earlier post said: The organization can reasonably require that they limit their commentary to event-related platitudes, and can enforce that requirement by whatever sanctions are in their legal power to levy. In other words: if they choose to ask, it’s a reasonable request.
If they DIDN’T choose to ask, then it’s obviously unreasonable to spring this requirement out of the blue. I don’t expect them to have a “no criticizing President Bush rule,” of course – as I said above, that would be inappropriate. But if they have a general rule regarding political commentary, or even regarding controversial announcement or displays, that’s sufficient. If they have no such rule, they can certainly use this event as the impetus to create such a rule, but it would be unfair to penalize their members retroactively for violating a rule that didn’t exist at the time.
See my last post, luci.
(I hope it’s OK if I call you that. I’m not a common GD or Pit girl, but I like the nick.)