According to an average members of society sense of dignity. As a Supreme Court justice once said about pornography "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". I think the same applies to vulgarity. Look at the actual words spoken, the context and tone in which they were delivered, and the intended purpose, and then it becomes fairly obvious if the word is vulgar or not. Lets not split hairs here. This isn't a first amendment issue.
What authority do you have to to censor others just because YOU find them offensive? What if I find your BS screen name offensive or even your real name? According to you, we should all have the authority to deem whatever we want inappropriate right? or do you only get to make the rules? the sky is blue because the sky is blue right? Circular reasoning. Why do you find them offensive? when did this poll take place? What constitutes being an average member? Consensus doesnt make anything a fact, just dogma. How so? This is a red herring but words will never equal an act of anything. Otherwise we wouldnt have the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words". Having said that, you mean to tell me that saying shit is remotely close to, lets say, watching asian bukkake? Regardless of what the supreme court justice said, one can not allude that his/her opinion over pornogrphy has ANY merit over what is considered vulgar. I agree. This is my whole point; although being "vulgar" is irrelevant. Correct. First admendment says nothing of saying whatever you want, whenever you want. This is purely a matter of semantics. These words are on offensive based on the power of suggestion by an appeal to emotion, not logic. If any can answer why these words are deemed offensive with actual facts instead of opinions, Id like to hear them and will certainly reconsider my position. Using "because everyone agrees" and "just because I think so" wont work. I want to know exactly how to qualify a word as vulgar or otherwise inappropriate with verifiable data.
Never mind. In my opinion (yours may differ) this isn't the appropriate venue for this discussion. Cuss if you want to, but be prepared for the consequences.
The original poster asked what to do about a coach that uses words deemed inappropriate. This seems like the best venue for dicussion for such topic. If he was asking a question he already knew his answer to, whats the point? what is this? salem massachusetts?
Words don't have to equal ANYTHING to be offensive. This isn't common law assault (where an imminent apprehension of harm is necessary) we're talking about here, but rather what's offensive/vulgar with respect to the spoken word. Shit may not be offensive to me, but it may be offensive to the majority of members in a given community. Again, look at ALL the circumstances surrounding the incident. Didn't say the SC justices opinion on pornography had any merit over what's comsidered vulgar. I simply set forth an analogy.
Well, if you want to continue playing devils advocate, the Supreme Court has already set forth what constitutes obscenity in a legal context with respect to the FCC. The SEVEN magic words. The situation at hand, however, isn't necessarily discussing the issue in a legal framework. We're talking purely what a paying parent deems to be offensive/vulgar language in a youth soccer setting involving young girls. Now if you want to continue debating the issue ad nauseum we can, but for the benefit of others on this thread. its really irrelevant what YOUR position is and the quantum of proof you demand.
Virginia Beach, Virginia, in the tourist area is the example I had in mind. In most public schools across the country speech and other conduct is controlled fairly tightly. Although it may be a tresspass law that is enforced after a person is told to leave the premises. Similar situations involve shopping malls, public libraries, public parks and churches. Most soccer fields are found on public parks and schools. Parks and schools often have regulations forbidding offensive and vulgar conduct.
I have absolutely no idea what in Gods name you're talking about. If Virginia Beach has some type of legislation applicable to it only, then its an ordinance, punsihable by fine only, not a criminal statute. Parks, malls, libraries, churches and schools have rules (not laws or even local ordinances) which CAN NOT be criminally enforced. What does trespass have to do with vulgar language? Trespass involves an unlawful entry upon property.
I once walked by a coach who was just shredding his U15 girls team. He was really insulting and mean. Stuff like that have been described here. Parents were standing around just letting him go on and on. My first thought was " do I really want someone talking to my daughter that way. Here is a man who is someone she may look up to (right or wrong) as an authority figure and I am would be apporving of his behavior. What message is that. Yelling, I guess and being critical of their play is fine. No need to put down. I think Mia Hamm said something to coach Tony C that went like "coach us like the guys, but talk to us like ladies" (please correct quote if wrong) . Bottom line at the young age it is about developing passion, fun, excitement and basic developement for the game. That kind of pressure should not be seen until U14 or so. One Dad's Opinion
While there are many good ideas on this post I am shocked that this person still is coaching. He should be removed and taken away from youth players. Here is the game plan you need to follow. Take away what matters to him most. Soccer coaching and pride. Build a website that addresses this issue and explains in exact detail what is happening. Video tape the coach screaming at the kids and include the video clip in the site. Find out what ORG controls the league. ie: NAYS or which ever. Then forward the website to them, all the club board members, and all the parents. Public humiliation is your only route that is left. You can register your domain and site privately to protect your child. Use an email that is not connected to you. This person should be removed from youth coaching and never allowed to return. Make sure you make the notation at the bottom that the website is an opinion website.
Maybe I'm taking this off topic, but only a little. I was just visiting the web site of a Massachusetts club that has had 2 teams at the Nationals the past 2 years. In viewing their Goals and Objectives I found this to stand out: Profanity at the highest levels of youth soccer must be such a big problem that it is noted by one the top clubs in Region 1.
It is a problem at all youth levels. However, it only becomes a BIG problem when the leadership does not deal with it properly and swiftly. Such as this person's problem. Ego driven youth coaches are the biggest danger to our sport. The next problem is club directors that fail to take actions to enforce their own guidelines. This person's club and its directors should be held responsible for this coach's actions. From what they are saying the issue has been addressed to them (uppers at the club) and nothing has been done. They ALL should be shamed into taking action or leave the club for the greater good of the kids. I do not tolerate any such behavior and address it quickly.
Great point VAL1.... If a coach is abusing a child in any form, verbal or physical, that would not be a "waivable" legal issue. The best thing to do is bring public exposure to the issue at the upper level. ie: An editorial in the local paper about this club and its failure to protect the kids. Get it in the spot light and he will go into the shadows. Walking away from it is not the answer.
Its not a matter of "waivable" legal rights. Its a matter of no criminal liability attaching for the conduct previously mentioned, and/or civil liability being minimal. In order to recover civilly, not only must the tort be proven, but damages must also be incurred. Trust me on this one.
Damages are irrelevant. The parents don't want money. They want the offensive, abusive conduct to stop.
No. Damages are NOT irrelevant. They're the ONLY relief available to you in tort. Not sure why that's so difficult to comprehend? And as stated earlier, you really don't have much recourse criminally with the facts presented. IMO, our legal system is not the appropriate avenue to obtain the relief sought.
That is probably true. I do think however that if some sort of action is not taken to remove this person from youth coaching, the behavior will not only be continued by him, but repeated by others. It appears that no one has officially addressed the issue. Which needs to be done. There needs to be some documentation that this behavior was addressed in the past and that the "uppers" have taken no official action to correct it. Guess it all comes down to whether you feel like carrying that sword. (Which can be a heavy one.)
Actually, the point I originally made was that the parents felt they had a contract and the parent organization would not release them. They want to be free to choose another club and they'd like their money back. I agree this is not a criminal issue, but given that their daughter is being subjected to "reasonable" harrassment, they probably have a case. Parent organizations cannot secure blanket immunity when they have been notified of illegal or unsafe behavior (that of the coach) once that organization has been apprised of such.
There isn't a youth soccer org in the nation that would extend a charter or membership to someone writing this phrase into a contract. If it is in writing you need to forward it to them. Again, take it to the ORG that they belong to and they will take action. However, there must be some sort of documentation or undeniable proof such as video or multiple written statements.
And I can almost guarantee you they don't have a civil case, at least on the facts presented. Otherwise, evry league with overbearing and self centered coaches in every sport in this country would be exposed to litigation. "Reasonable" harrasment is not a cause of action, nor is reasonable the standard. As far as the parent organization securing blanket immunity after the fact, well, I'm confused. The waiver is procured BEFORE the fact, not after. And yes, parent orgs can be liable for the acts of their employees notwithstanding contractual provisions to the contrary, but the facts have to be a whole hell of a lot more egregious than what was presented.
Do you think nothing would happen if the coach walked up to a police officer instead of a minor and screamed "you ********ing suck?" I imagine there would be different results in different communities, but I would not care to live in a community where breaches of the peace are ignored.
Yes, nothing would happen. What would he be charged with, aggravating a peace officer? Not sure why you insist on questioning me regarding this issue. The results aren't different in different communities. Criminal liability arises via state statute. Civil liability arises out a tort cause of action recognized in your respective state. The only thing measured by a community standard is what would be deemed offensive in a civil action.