Gays in the NFL. How Do You Really Feel?

"Hate Speech"? Sorry, didn't realize the thought police were on the patrol.

You, and most of the US adult population, disagree with what he said - but, he is free to say it. You, in turn, are free to call him an ass. To him, or others, however, calling folks with a different viewpoint from yours "an effing insensitive discriminatory idiot" might also qualify as "Hate Speech".

Free speech is free speech and with it you are, in general, free to use hateful speech, unkind speech, vulgar speech, pretty speech, politically correct speech or any of plethora of adjectives you wish to put in front of "speech".

Sorry, the misuse, abuse and misunderstanding of the term "free speech" is a big pet peeve of mine. It is too important a concept to so cavalierly compartmentalized.

Question for the forum lawyer, and I'm not referring to the 49er player here. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is often referenced as a limitation on free speech, but what about language that incites violence against a person or group? Can that form of speech be muzzled so to speak?

Question for the forum lawyer, and I'm not referring to the 49er player here. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is often referenced as a limitation on free speech, but what about language that incites violence against a person or group? Can that form of speech be muzzled so to speak?

Isn't yelling fire in a theater only limited because it endangers the people around them? O_o

The seminal case on free speech and its limitations is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942):

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. (emphasis mine)

Fighting words are not simply words that are "offensive". Further, you can't target specific "fighting words" based on some types of content but not others. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), St. Paul passed a statute that said:

Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Supreme Court struck it down saying:

Although the phrase in the ordinance, "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others," has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme Court's construction to reach only those symbols or displays that amount to "fighting words," the remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use "fighting words" in connection with other ideas — to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality — are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.

Believe me us strait men don't worry about it or care what you all do among yourselves. But why the need for the coming out announcements and the gay parades ect... If your just gay then just be gay and stop advertising. We don't...

And by you I don't mean you personally just in general.

* snapping my finger in a zig zag motion...*

Dont speak for me. I am a straight man and I completely disagree with you.

And being straight IS advertised constantly. You are either blind or brainwashed into thinking its not. Gf ans bf from day one. All shows all teaching curriculum all everything advertises being straight you just dont see it.

This is literally the samw argument used by whites against blacks during the civil rights movement and even now.

Dave Kopay

Jerry Smith

Wade Davis







Stephen Davis? No.

Why does it matter?

Holy Crap. This thread started off as a kid lighting off a firecracker, and turned into a national forest being burnt down. Damn.

Well first, I honestly don't care about the whole gay rights talk. Not saying I don't like gays, saying that I don't care one way or another if gays can get married or whatever. It doesn't affect me nor my immediate family.

Second, I'm glad this topic came up, I was thinking about making a similar thread when the Te'o story came up. Lets just play the what if game here. So assuming Te'o is gay(and he becomes the first known NFL gay player), how could you see him in an NFL locker room with 52+ other guys getting showered and dressed etc. I would find it pretty hard to believe that a guy like Terrell Suggs or Ed Reed or Pollard for this case would be ok with a guy in the locker room. Those are some guys that I think would be yelling at him for looking their way and telling coaches and GMs "Why is this gay guy on our team?" So right there, he could be a different kind of locker room distraction. Add to that the amount of crap that the gay player would receive when he makes a tackle below the waste and above the knees with players from the other team making fun of that player. Then look at it in the fans perspective of fans of that team getting crap from fans from other teams saying negative derogatory comments about your gay player. Sure there are some players in the league who are fine with gays and gay marriage (and some that are secretly gay), but just know that the negative voices are heard loudest.

Third, I understand completely what Culliver was trying to say, but he worded it wrong, now getting himself into trouble, by putting his team in a negative spot light (especially with his own citys community) right before the super bowl.

Fourth, Smoot, I've always wanted to know if you knew some gay rumored NFL players (even past--like someone said Strahan the other day; I've heard about Ovie Mughelli and I personally thought that Shaun Alexander, Jeff Garcia and John Runyan were gay) You just mentioned that we have had the most gay people on our team. Who would that be?

Ok, without reading 5 pages I will just answer the question,who cares,we don't play in the NFL and even if we did it's no ones business.

Dont speak for me. I am a straight man and I completely disagree with you.

And being straight IS advertised constantly. You are either blind or brainwashed into thinking its not. Gf ans bf from day one. All shows all teaching curriculum all everything advertises being straight you just dont see it.

This is literally the samw argument used by whites against blacks during the civil rights movement and even now.

No, it is you who are brainwashed. strait is not advertised, it's normal way of life. But like I said, times are changing, and dont involve race in this because its completely a seperate issue. Im a man and I love black women and Im white, nothing wrong with that. Now If I loved Black men, there would be a big difference...

Sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought the fool..,

And Cult, I'm not going to out anyone

quit stealing my line smoot