In response to your examples, I would say that, with one exception, organizations have a right to control all of these situations. Whatever happens in a venue where the athlete is representing an organization could be considered a reflection on that organization. Members should be made aware of what the organization won’t tolerate, and act accordingly if they want to remain a member.
Again, with one exception, I don’t see morality as being at issue here.
The thing is, I don’t necessarily agree with the decisions this Bridge federation made. In fact, I tend to agree more towards your way of thinking. However, I’m not talking about what my personal preferences are, I’m talking about what the organization has a right to expect.
I have no idea how they were harmed, but it’s not my call to make.
It wouldn’t bother me if any of those other organizations banned political speech from their pulpits. See, you are an athlete, and you resent the culture of athletics from this standpoint. I can understand that. But it IS part of the culture, and whether or not you like it, the organizations have the right to enforce these kinds of rules.
Quite right, wrote it bass ackwards, like the dyslexic suicide who threw himself behind a bus. I shall go to the river, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation.
He thinks it’s funy the way I like to go on this board and argue with liberals, because at home, I’M the bleeding heart. He knows a girl needs a little variety in her life.
I suppose that private organizations can have whatever rules they want to kick out members - saying you can’t wear a hat when representing us in public, can’t have a moustache, can’t promote legalization of marijuana, can’t (gasp) criticize our president, etc. I understand that.
But this is another example of what I’ve noticed since living here - people in the USA always say they support (in principle) freedom of speech, but there are all kinds of pressure in day-to-day society to discourage people from voicing criticism of the USA.
I think the only point is that they didn’t want them to express those opinions while representing the organization. Off hours you can say whatever you want. I don’t think it’s a big burden, myself. When I’m on a business trip I refrain from talking about religion and politics with clients.
The idea that bridge is a sport, like track and field is a sport, and that it is governed by senile old farts like Avery Brundige could not be farther from the truth. The governing body is composed almost solely of bridge players. That is it could just as easily have been Gail Greenberg making the ruling as it was Gail Greenberg making the sign. The bridge world is totally incestuous. The President of the U.S. Bridge Federation, Jan Martel, (who I think is a former world champion) is married to a world champion bridge player, Chip Martel, both of whom were in Shanghai as coach and captain of one of the men’s teams participating. Joanna Stansby, one of the team members, is maried to Lew Stansby who was also there as a participant and Lew Stansby and Chip Martel used to be partners (IIRC.) The way it seems to a casual observer is that most really prominent players eventually gravitate to leadership roles within the various organizations and at the same time become captains or coaches of their friends’ teams so they can continue to go to these events on someone else’s dime. The intermingling of teams, coaches, captains, and leaders makes it improbable in the extreme that the sign was posted without any previous discussion or thougtful debate. It’s kind of like a Supreme Court nominee never having considered Roe v. Wade.
Of course, it’s true that America, like all cultures, does have its social pressures. But when Americans talk about “freedom of speech,” it means something very specific, which is that the government can’t stop you from expressing yourself, or jail or kill you for doing so. It has nothing whatsoever to do with citizens giving each other platforms from which to express themselves. It wouldn’t be considered the least bit contradictory to strongly support the Constitutional “freedom of speech,” while also at the same time using that freedom, as well as the freedom of association that we also have, to provide platforms for one’s preferred speech at the expense of someone else’s.
Evidently the Bridge Federation spokesman thought it would seem contradictory. Otherwise he wouldn’t have prefaced his remarks with “While I believe in the right to free speech…” You don’t say that unless the thing you’re about to say next will be an argument for limiting speech, and you’re trying to head off criticism.
I understand the whole first amendment thing (or I think I do) and how it only applies to the government not being able to restrict what you say. I just find it ironic that in a country that prides itself so much on the freedom of speech, criticism of the government is socially so much frowned upon.
Playing a little fast and loose there, aren’t you, Sarah? While it is certainly true that the Constituional protections are specific to the government, that doesn’t mean that the boundaries of free speech are **restricted ** by that definition, we also enjoy freedom of speech by common law and common assent. Joe Blow cannot stop you from espousing your reactionary opinions, nor can he prevent me from spreading the cool light of sweet reason in response.
Expressing your views is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility. Never more so than in interesting times, such as we are currently enduring.
I’m not sure he thought it would be contradictory. In fact, I think just the opposite…he was demonstrating exactly what I’m saying. That the government can’t stop the women from making their political statement, but that he wasn’t going to give them a platform for it.
No, I don’t think I’m playing fast and loose at all. Joe Blow can’t stop me from espousing my opinion, but he doesn’t need to give me a platform for doing it.
