[QUOTE=Malodorous]
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.
[/QUOTE]
As with matters of actual law, the question of precedent becomes paramount. Can anyone point to previous disciplinary sanctions for similar actions also under the rubric of “conduct unbecoming a member?” If two players were suspended in 1994 for holding signs saying, “We escaped Klinton’s Amerika!” then these players don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
If, on the other hand, this is the first time “conduct unbecoming” has ever been extended to making a political statement in a public venue, then the organization is unreasonable; no one could deduce from the words alone that the signs were prohibited.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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.”
[/quote]
I obviously don’t endorse that guy’s First Amendment theories.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As with matters of actual law, the question of precedent becomes paramount. Can anyone point to previous disciplinary sanctions for similar actions also under the rubric of “conduct unbecoming a member?” If two players were suspended in 1994 for holding signs saying, “We escaped Klinton’s Amerika!” then these players don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
If, on the other hand, this is the first time “conduct unbecoming” has ever been extended to making a political statement in a public venue, then the organization is unreasonable; no one could deduce from the words alone that the signs were prohibited.
[/QUOTE]
So, if there’s no rule explicitly forbidding political statements, the Bridge Foundation can’t enforce this ruling. But if there’s a previous instance of them using this same rule to punish someone for political speech, this ruling is okay? Does that strike anyone else as weird? If this ruling is only acceptable if there’s precendent, how was the precedent ever considered acceptable?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As with matters of actual law, the question of precedent becomes paramount. Can anyone point to previous disciplinary sanctions for similar actions also under the rubric of “conduct unbecoming a member?” If two players were suspended in 1994 for holding signs saying, “We escaped Klinton’s Amerika!” then these players don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the website. I flipped through the minutes dealing with the present case and didn’t see any reference to a prior situation (and really, I can’t imagine that it comes up that often).
The full text of the rule they were supposed to have broken:
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Here’s the website. I flipped through the minutes dealing with the present case and didn’t see any reference to a prior situation (and really, I can’t imagine that it comes up that often).
The full text of the rule they were supposed to have broken:
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s nice and broad, isn’t it?
[QUOTE=Miller]
So, if there’s no rule explicitly forbidding political statements, the Bridge Foundation can’t enforce this ruling. But if there’s a previous instance of them using this same rule to punish someone for political speech, this ruling is okay? Does that strike anyone else as weird? If this ruling is only acceptable if there’s precendent, how was the precedent ever considered acceptable?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I suppose if they wanted to set a precedent, they could slap the current offenders with a small fine and a warning that they would be unlikely to contest. Then I’d agree they’d be more justified in going after the next bunch of renegade Bridge players that do something similar with the type of Draconian punishments they’re talking about, since the previous case would’ve made it clear that it was against the rules.
As a side note, it looks like they are changing the rules to make it an explicit violation to make political statements anyways, so if the 2009 team takes out their “Prez Hillary Sux” sign, then I’d agree they would be justified in suspending them.
As another side note, reading US Bridge Federation board minutes is possibly the most desperate thing I’ve done yet to avoid doing real work.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Yeah. “Don’t do bad stuff.”
[/QUOTE]
Or more like, “don’t do stuff we don’t like.” That kind of leaves the door open, doesn’t it? I would think that this clause could easily be applied here. At least, as long as there was no precedent, as Bricker explained. I would imagine that there’s a good chance that no members have ever tried to make a political statement like this before.
[QUOTE=Muffin]
I wish sport organizing bodies would stop trying to enforce morality.
[/QUOTE]
Except there’s no morality involved here. It’s not a matter of morality, it’s a matter of appropriate settings and putting an organization in a position of looking as though it endorses your opinion.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, maybe the cold treatment was because the US players are assholes*.
*I don’t know that they are assholes, but assuming political motivations for cold treatment is a bullshit excuse, although I am personaly sure that any girl who has ever treated me coldly in a bar did so because of my anti-communist stance.
The article also mentions that other players at the tournement were sporting “1/20/09” buttons. That is the date President Bush leaves office. The button clearly makes a political statement. These players have no actions being taken against them or proposed against them.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
The article also mentions that other players at the tournement were sporting “1/20/09” buttons. That is the date President Bush leaves office. The button clearly makes a political statement. These players have no actions being taken against them or proposed against them.
[/QUOTE]
This seems to give evidence against what you said earlier, that you interpret their response as agreeing with the complaints. That is, it wasn’t the content of the message, but the time & place chosen to express it that the Federation had a problem with.