massraider
Footballguy
I'll tell you what happened. We all graduated out of elementary school.
You don't still believe words can never hurt, do you?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Should ESPN do anything? Jason Kelce smashes student's phone (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
You don't still believe words can never hurt, do you?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Very much agree
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
If I am not mistaken, Freedom of Speech in the US only protects you from the Government not being able to arrest you for what you say.
There is no protection, under the Freedom of Speech amendment, if you say things to other citizens.
Too many people confuse the protection from being arrested by the government into thinking they are consequence free in what ever they say.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Yeah, people don't seem to understand what freedom of speech means. At all.
Perhaps schools could start teaching this, along with financial literacy. They won't, but a man can dream.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I used the"be nice" clip when I was an Crisis Intervention instructor at the hospital. Classes of about 25. There was always about 2-3 people who enjoyed the clip, so well worth it.
rockaction
Footballguy
Freedom of speech certainly means something other than government intervention and state actors. It also means a more general concept of not getting punched or having your phone smashed for things that you say. People seem to not understand that. Of course, there are limits of the types of speech we’re subject to and this was harassment in the true sense.
But to say that “freedom of speech” is a concept that only applies to state actors is wrongheaded and narrow. There is no freedom of speech if the mob chases you down and injures you in some way for saying it.
There is a practical element to the concept.
But to say that “freedom of speech” is a concept that only applies to state actors is wrongheaded and narrow. There is no freedom of speech if the mob chases you down and injures you in some way for saying it.
There is a practical element to the concept.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean consequence free speech in all instances.
If some one calls someone else a "f@gg@t" it's not their "Freedom of Speech" that protects them from physical harm, it's the assault laws against physical confrontation where there's no physical provocation to defend oneself from.
How does the First Amendment protect the college student in this instance?
sho nuff
Footballguy
And an open beer in the same hand as the 12 pack. Multi-talented
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The first amendment protects the college student because Penn State is (obviously) a state actor. It lacks any legal basis for punishing the student.
But I agree with you on the general point. "Freedom of speech" has never meant that you get to get up in another grown man's face and hurl fighting words without consequences. A smashed phone or a bloody nose is 100% fine here. I would much rather live in a world where Jason Kelce resolves this problem with low-key violence versus (a) a world where we're all expected to put up with geeks shoving phones in our faces when we're just trying to mind our own business or (b) a world where this all gets adjudicated after the fact by an HR lady. I absolutely do wish to apply such a rule universally, in a Kantian sense.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
well, yes, but that wasn't the real issue being discussed - it was in regard to Kelce's actions.
Nugget
Footballguy
Can Penn State not punish (Suspend/Expel) the student? Kansas just suspended a lecturer for comments made during a class.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Penn State is bound by the first amendment. There is no "hate speech" exception to the first amendment, and nobody would seriously argue that the student was engaged in illegal harassment in the Title IX sense. This is the sort of low-level interpersonal conflict that we don't need HR or Student Affairs to navigate.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
In general this is true but there are some specific criteria involved where protection is no longer granted by the amendment:
=====================
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects hate speech, as long as it doesn't meet certain criteria:
- True threats: Speech that is a serious attempt to commit violence against a specific person or group is not protected. The speaker must intend to carry out the threat, and must have the means and opportunity to do so.
- Incitement to lawless action: Speech that incites imminent lawless action is not protected.
- Obscenity: Obscene speech is not protected.
- Disruption: Speech that creates or threatens to disrupt a school's functioning is not protected.
Max Power
Footballguy
This is actually the part that bothers me. Drinking on the job and open container on campus.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Some jobs don't have rules against drinking on the job.
Some campuses sell beer on campus.
Some people got their jobs partly because of their boozed up personality.
Harry Manback
Footballguy
I think the kid should be suspended or expelled from school, personally.
Are we ok with doxxing the student? Serious interest in the answers. I get that he was a douche nozzle but how far is acceptable in this day and age for us, the mob, to intervene in this? I see people advocating for him to be expelled and proffering this incident might hamper his job prospects but is that a fair consequence based solely on the fact that in this day and age everything is recorded for posterity?
Also, young people, particularly guys, can be waaayyy stoopider when young, many of us grow out of it.
Also, young people, particularly guys, can be waaayyy stoopider when young, many of us grow out of it.
Personally, my default is "no" on "do we dox the person?"
But I also understand the other side.
He put himself in the spotlight with this.
Harry Manback
Footballguy
Doxed or appropriately called out for being a homophobic vile instigator? I'd want to know what type of a person he was if I were a prospective employer. He's presumably 18+, probably closer to 21. Plenty old enough to know better than to antagonize someone by calling their family a homophobic slur. He's lucky he has his teeth, maybe that's what he was hoping for. A paycheck. I think some swift justice in the form of his reputation being destroyed (largely by his own doing) is good enough.
Max Power
Footballguy
I get it, but when your drinking on the job employee smashes someone's property, the company has to own that.
I understand the desire for justice but I'm not sure the swift part isn't also the lingering part. I am grateful there weren't cameras around in my younger days when me and my friends said and did some really inappropriate stuff.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
really?
Harry Manback
Footballguy
Last I checked it wasn't the kids profession to antagonize a stranger with gay slurs.
True but it isn't Kelce's prerogative to smash a phone because he doesn't like the kids words. He committed assault, the kid committed idiocy.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I don't think he was really using the word in a homophobic way but more in the "school yard" teasing kind of way. Not saying it makes it right, but I keep seeing it referred to as a homophobic slur.
Does anyone really think this kid thinks Travis Kelce is gay - I mean he's calling him that name for dating Taylor Swift after all?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
No. A smashed phone or a bloody nose is exactly the right amount of punishment for this sort of offense.
Seriously, society is better off when we allow people like Kelce to handle this situation as he did. There is no need to get HR or Student Affairs involved -- we do not need hall monitors for this sort of thing. And it's not a big enough to deal to ruin anybody's life over or blow it up into a national story (although it already is since a celebrity is involved).
A dumb kid did something dumb and learned a low-stakes lesson. Perfect. 10/10, would not change a thing.
Was he "on the job" during this walk to the game? I don't think he was. I think this was off hours and had nothing to do with his job responsibilities. (I could be wrong though)
That's where I'm at; unless either party takes this the legal route then it starts and ends between them, imo. I will not be surprised, though, if the stupid kid decides to sue Kelce at which time all's fair as his name will be out there in public anyway. Based on the kids actions in the video he may be that dumb.
Probably depends on your job and whether or not your fist fight reflects badly (and knowingly) on the company. There are many jobs where you are the publicly facing symbol of the company and any bad publicity negatively affects the company whether you are on the clock or not. So in some instances the employer could/should do something if you negatively impact the companies reputation.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I mean if he wants to get a job some day, it's probably not a great move to bring further attention to himself and get his name out there.
rockaction
Footballguy
Freedom of speech is not limited to First Amendment application. It does not mean consequence-free speech, either. We draw lines all the time about what is acceptable and what isn’t. Blanket statements like “speech isn’t free of consequence” is but a song away from the mob kicking your *** because you just brought up a salient and unapologetic fact like men can’t be women no matter how badly men want to be women.
Watch the reactions to that statement and tell me if you don’t want some restraint in response to something like that. Or should all speech have consequences?
IOW, freedom of speech is nothing without concepts that protect you from expressing an opinion without serious and untoward reprisals for otherwise innocuous statements. Like destroyed property and punched faces.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Per who? This seems like a more philosophical approach than a legal analysis.
TennesseeJed
Footballguy
People say this - and its true we do live in a litigious society - but, it would be a stretch for the kid to actually file a law suit here.
1. He has to find a lawyer willing to take on a case where the liability may be easy to prove, but the damages will be dubious. Lawyers do not like to work for nothing - even those just seeking publicity. And suing a popular figure, is probably not the publicity they want, with very little upside.
2. If he files a lawsuit - the entire transaction is going to play out - and the jury pool is going to look a lot like the general public, which has strongly backed Kelce here. So, its not hard to imagine that even if the jury finds Kelce liable, it awards nominal damages - and the kid will have gutted himself as a jerk for no gain.
3. If the kid does get a lawyer, the lawyer will send a nasty letter to Kelce and ESPN - and best case scenario, Kelce agrees to pay for the phone - just to make the nuisance go away. But, non-zero chance, Kelso either tells the kid to pound sand, or demands a public apology in exchange for replacing the phone.
rockaction
Footballguy
It is a philosophical approach. Freedom of speech means nothing without some sort of tacit social agreement about restraint of action by parties who claim to be aggrieved by certain concepts or words, especially when issues are hot-button and the parties are large ones (like ones that might go to war).
The kid was seriously wrong in this instance to do this, by the way. This isn’t a roundabout way of defending him. He was haranguing and following Kelce and recording him like Kelce was his journalistic subject or something.
Camera, meet smash. You can expect that. It still is probably a bad thing to encourage or laud.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
We seem to be "arguing" two sperate things. All speech does have some consequences - whether those fall into a legal realm is another story.
I mean could someone sue @Joe Bryant for not letting us discuss politics here? Wouldn't that fall into your broad take on a Freedom of Speech?
Max Power
Footballguy
Joe reported he was there walking to the college gameday set.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Maybe I'm confused but you seem to be arguing against your own point here.
My point though is people brought up "Freedom of Speech" as if this kid can say anything he wants with no consequences - that's a bastardization of the concept,
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, I’m not even arguing that the kid’s speech was legal. It could be under the “fighting words” doctrine and lead to the young man’s arrest should a court be so willing to find it that way.
We are arguing two different things. I’m worried about mob or extralegal reprisals to pure speech. You’re worried (I think) about free speech and state actors.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I do think if he'd called him a douchebag or something he'd not have gotten the same kind of reaction.
It seems like there are three words (N word, F word, C word) that are a step above the rest in terms of how people react to it.
So maybe not "technically on the job" but drinking before "work" might not be allowed.....or maybe it is allowed in this type atmosphere/job duty
rockaction
Footballguy
I’m making a fine distinction with an example. Perhaps it’s too fine to make on the internet.
It stems from this notion: I don’t like what the kid did. Not emotionally, not substantively, not politically if this is a right-wing conspiracy thing. But we don’t just go around willy-nilly deciding to destroy property or hurt people physically. Kelce went the property route. I’m not comfortable at all with putting that sort of power in the average citizen’s hands because their judgment about whether something is offensive or not is very, very subjective and therefore, suspect. That’s what I was trying to get at with my example of how innocuous and true things might get people to destroy you or your property for simply saying them in a particular context.
So yeah, my way is an intellectual way of saying that we shouldn’t necessarily say “speech has consequences” without realizing that we might be opening up Pandora’s box of violence and property destruction.
Better to lean on Kelce a bit here and say he was wrong for destroying the camera. The kid we know is wrong. It’s the reaction to him that concerns me.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
My original comment was a reaction to people brining up the concept of "Freedom of Speech" as if it was applicable in this situation.
Other than what ivan said about the school not be able to go after the kid for his speech, that concept is not applicable here as to the interaction between this kid and Kelce. Kelce's response does not violate this student's Freedom of Speech but it may cross over to assault.
Harry Manback
Footballguy
I think society self-policing decorum and decency is exactly what society is meant to do.
Neufchâtel, Fontina and camembert?
Harry Manback
Footballguy
You shouldn’t feel safe insulting a persons family on the street. You shouldn’t feel safe doing it behind an anonymous account either.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think society is meant to protect each individual from the other, but you do your social contract and I’ll do mine.
