No, the problem for MLS is that it wants to be arbitrary about what political speech it allows and from whom. An intentionally vague policy suits its cynical purposes.
For myself, I distinguish between "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" (political) and "End Gun Violence" (not political.) I distinguish between a rainbow colored "All Are Welcome" (not political) and "Support Marriage Equality" (political.) I'm not sure why some people think "Oppose Nazis" is political rather than non-political. The conversations in this forum over the last few days indicate some posters do. I find that sad and weird. Is embracing white supremacy and genocide really a live issue for you guys?????
It doesn't really matter if you think soccer matches should or shouldn't be regulated speech zones, though -- they are and we don't really have a say in the matter. There is no requirement on the league's part to ensure speech is regulated in a "fair" or consistent way -- only in a way that allows them to operate their business most effectively. The larger issue is we are, as a democracy, dispossessed of platforms for meaningful public discourse or ways to influence those with their hands on the levers of power -- who are increasingly distant and unaccountable to us. (that also applies to orgs like the NRA, which no longer operate in the interest of the majority of conservatives). Bedoya and Kaepernick exist in lieu of real public intellectuals or public discourse about social problems.
This is the distinction I make too. It's not uncommon to hear people say that the Trump administration is fascist. The definition of fascist has changed so it does not literally mean Nazi, it means something much broader than that. Saying that you are anti-fascist is a way of saying that you are anti-Trump (and an indirect way of calling someone a Nazi without having to be blatant about it). That's a political statement. As I've said before, saying "Always against hate, always against violence, always against racism" seems to capture the sentiment you want, in the spirit of your first paragraph. No one's objecting to that. The fact that it isn't what the protesters want suggests that there is something more, and I think that's political.
Because, invariably, that label is applied to people that are neither support white supremacy, nor genocide, but are rather just people that support particular conservative issues.
I don't think they want to be arbitrary. What what they want is there to be a bunch of banners with such anodyne statements that no one could be offended and so not buy tickets. As a practical matter, it's hard to get that right in a large disaggregated organization which is why the policy ends up being somewhat arbitrary even if that's not their intention.
I think they do. There are lots of other aspects of MLS business practices that suggest MLS likes having the ability to dispense with the even-handed application of rules according to its sole discretion and caprice.
I think by saying "no political" banners at MLS games, MLS is trying to differentiate between partisan political iconography versus more non-partisan statements such as "refugees welcome". In fact, the Timbers have encouraged fans to individually continue to express anti-fascist statements, but refrain from Iron Front iconography because it may be associated with partisan groups and definitely originates from a socialist party. I do agree that capricious enforcement has exacerbated the problem. "End Gun Violence" is political per se, but definitely not partisan. https://www.oregonlive.com/timbers/...-on-iron-front-symbol-political-displays.html
Assuming Bing results are accurate, they all seem to hover around the $10-$20 million range with the exception of Nadella, Myerson and Wilson which each have around a $100 to $180 million net worth. So if you assume $150 million for those three, and $10 million for the other 8 you're looking at roughly half a billion in added "value".
The MLSPA supports the efforts of its fan/supporters' groups to overturn MLS's overly vague ban on "political" speech at MLS games. (1/2)— MLSPA (@MLSPA) August 13, 2019
As countless athletes have shown in the past several years, we all have a voice and should be empowered to use it to support inclusiveness and oppose those who attempt to silence opinion. Our supporters' groups are the backbone of our league and have our full support. (2/2)— MLSPA (@MLSPA) August 13, 2019
A libertarian would be fine with what the MLS Players Association said. American conservatism is now authoritarianism and they most likely would oppose them simply because they don't like the message (being against racism). It may come as a shock to some outside Cascadia but most of us hold very libertarian views when it comes to speech. Washington is also an open carry state yet we also agree that gun violence is a problem. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Fascist and Nazi are, in fact, NOT synonyms. Maybe so. I would argue that we should be able to distinguish between being a fascist, and being against a progressive income tax. Conservative and libertarian are two different things. For example, I think nobody here would argue that the current Republican Party more or less defines American conservatism. Libertarians and the GOP have different views on marriage equality, or prayer in school, or marijuana legalization. Stop being such a snowflake.
Absolutely. It's a bit of fiction that authoritarian regimes rise to power by seizing guns from citizens. Usually, the opposite happens. For example, the Nazis encouraged and expanded gun ownership for Germans -- just not Jews. They weaponized the anger and humiliation the German people experienced during the interwar period, deputizing average citizens to kill in the name of patriotism. It is a specific tactic used by fascist regimes to gain power. It is in use now. A rise in violence and destruction of law anywhere is a benefit to authoritarians. It requires a childish mentality to believe the Founding Fathers would've carefully established the checks-and-balances of democracy, only to include an escape clause (the backward interpretation of the 2nd amendment) that says anyone with enough charisma and guns can lead by military junta. It is not a mistake that the 2nd amendment has become the cornerstone of the party that no longer has a pathway to the Presidency via popular vote and has only won it twice in the past 8 elections, going back 30 years (and never as the non-incumbent challenger).
MLS did not really do it. The media vote was 75% and the fan vote made him player of the week. The players union made the statement. MLS has been on the sideline probably because they had no policy. They seem to do now.
Um, the whole point of antifa is to silence ("deplatform") people they disagree with whether Nazis in Charlottesville or Milo Yiannopolous in Berkeley. So the MLSPA is now anti-antifa?
Being an old grumpy guy I would. For me Ronald Reagan is American conservative while current Republican Party is moving to pure populism lead by the President. Not like I'm any happier to see where Democrats are moving.
Both Milo and Ben Shapiro are racists and transphobes. Any ideology which exhalts superiority of one class of people over another or which excludes & dehumanizes a group of people is fascistic. Many places (including MLS) have a code of inclusiveness which specifically bans discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. These guys go to colleges to provoke and gaslight people. They're trolls or professional griefers. Neither of those guys have run from the fascist label so of course people against racism and fascism would be against them as they represent a threat to the American ideals of "A Shining City on a Hill". Reagan said that, not "liberals". The "free speech" Milo AND Shapiro champion is not free if they are advocating racism, etc. People pay real world prices (including death) for that type of rhetoric when left to flourish. Free speech does NOT mean free of criticism or being challenged.