Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by Stuart95, Aug 5, 2019.
What is their official policy on that subject? Is there a precedent?
I'm not surprised. As you say, MLS did not want the bad press. And they don't care about precedent, because they never have in any context. Inconsistency is the only thing you can rely on with MLS.
Bedoya was just named player of the week, probably for his activism rather than play. Fining him would just bring bad press to the league. They'll wait until someone says something more inflammatory.
That may be true, but it goes to my initial point that MLS is run by hypocrites who refuse to live by the same rules they expect their fans to abide by.
And someone surely will.
Zlatan probably has that covered. I doubt Petke speaks out too much the rest of the year.
We restrict who can fly planes and drive cars to those who can prove proficiency, precisely because they have the potential to be deadly. Would you accept this for potential gun owners?
I think they are men running a business; their personal political beliefs, I think, are not a huge factor as much as doing what's best for the company (thankfully).
You're the ass hat if you think anything short of staunch physical resistance is an acceptable means of dealing with nazis/white supremacists. I never mentioned anything about what happened at Berkley, you're deflecting whilst ignoring what's happened recently in charlottesville, christchurch, gilroy, El Paso, etc. and if you can, on any reasonable level, compare them equally you are part of the problem.
Who said anything about anyone's personal political beliefs? I'm saying they are not treating us fans fairly. Their motives are immaterial. They're hypocrites to make us adhere to standards they will not abide for themselves or their employees.
That's also a very poor analogy, drugs are something you take yourself. Also no a lot of the people doing these things are obtaining the guns legally.
So to sum up, according to MLS:
national anthem & national flag = good/required at all matches
political speech protected by the 1st amendment = bad/banned (except when politically inexpedient, or grand-fathered in, or you know...)
To be clear, political speech is not explicitly protected from being blocked by your employer by the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment only prevents the government from blocking it (and even then, there are exceptions).
Oh. Well, yeah, I guess. But I don't know of too many business that don't regulate the discourse within that business.
For awareness, the press is 75% of the vote for MLS Player of the week. 25% is from the fans via Twitter poll. MLS as a league is not involved in the vote.
The first words of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are "Congress shall make no law [...]" MLS doesn't infringe upon 1st Amendment rights. Only the government can.
This is true, but if we believe in free speech as a value and human right, and something crucial to a functioning democracy, then some of its protections should apply to private institutions and private spaces, which have far more influence over our lives today than at the time of writing of the Constitution.
The quasi-public space theories of extending free speech protections to shopping malls, social media -- and sports stadia -- have not been fully developed. A test legal case by ECS and/or Timbers Army against MLS with regard to Antifa banners in a stadium in California, where state free speech law is ostensibly broader, would be a welcome development.
I wonder where the soccer went. You know, that amazing game that Republicans, Deomocrats, Libertarians, and Vegetarians all love?
As a a gay man, I like those rainbow uniform numbers in June, but it is political. MLS is all wet. It's views on this are driven by polls. The Golden Rule is I want Hinkley to have the same freedom and liberty as I desire for myself.
Err, I meant Hinkle.