PWD 590: The Juice Spot

[Michaelangelo]

 

[mudflap mike]

I'll accept that duck.

Economic pressure levied by the President of the United States to harm their business as a result of their stance on certain speech is a de facto infringement of the first amendment. You're not going to get around that.

does that apply to a private company? there are certain things you cannot do or say in a private job (even if it infringes on your 1st amendment rights). i do not agree with it, but it is legal.

 

[deezy]

.







Except for the fact that the NFL was losing money on the protests when it started TWO YEARS AGO. So your argument only stands if you believe Trump single-handedly hurt the NFL by telling them to stand for the national anthem...via Twitter

Considering this entire thing didn't blow up until Trump made it a talking point at his rallies was when ratings and attendance dropped.....

 

[Falsedawn]

.







Except for the fact that the NFL was losing money on the protests when it started TWO YEARS AGO. So your argument only stands if you believe Trump single-handedly hurt the NFL by telling them to stand for the national anthem...via Twitter

Considering that it's utilized as his official twitter in his capacity as president, his statements directly inflamed the issue to this point, and he sent Mike Pence to waste taxpayer money to grandstand on the issue, yeah I obviously think the president did that. People protested, sure, but the degree of protest directly increased when the president opened his cocksucker and got directly involved in the issue.

It bears itself out in the transcripts of their private meeting with the NFLPA and players. The rationale for ending the protest wasn't "We want you to be patriotic" it was "We want to get Trump off our back because he's hurting profits". That alone should be indicative of the urgency involved as a result of government intervention.

So yes, it was a nice try, because you don't have a rebuttal that amounts to anything more than "this is a nothingburger". Par for the course.

 

[GetTheseHands]

Both these s almost died...during the fight

 

[GetTheseHands]

Considering this entire thing didn't blow up until Trump made it a talking point at his rallies was when ratings and attendance dropped.....

No it didn't, it blew up when Colin started the protest in 2016...when Obama was president

 

[Stargazer Rex]

 

[Darth Nevets]

Disney does not own Fox yet, Comcast is trying to beat them out for it.

A bit more complicated than that, as Comcast (who owns Universal already) is trying to spoil the buyout mostly out of spite. The stock offer is to the Murdochs worth more because Disney has future plan that will enrich them greatly. Namely, launch a streaming service with a plethora of content to bury Netflix. This deal will bring the X-Men and Fantastic Four home, dominating the box office, and will also allow for the greatest catalog that exists. It's this fear that drives these sales, hence why three of the six biggest movie studios went up for sale in one year.

The Comcast offer is not really different legally (antitrust laws is what prevents this deal from solidifying). They have a bit more conflict, as they own Versus (now called the NBC Sports Network), NBC, and MSNBC which directly conflicts with FS1/2, Fox, and Fox News. None of those are in the Disney package but many that are in may conflict especially the FX Network.

 

[Falsedawn]

does that apply to a private company? there are certain things you cannot do or say in a private job (even if it infringes on your 1st amendment rights). i do not agree with it, but it is legal.

The issue isn't that it was a private company, the issue is that damages were directly felt as a result of the President acting in his official capacity. De facto, it's a cut and dry case. De jure (by the law), it's a little more complicated. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Rhode Island is the relevant SCOTUS case for this issue. The government can not informally restrict speech on obscenity grounds that will also curtail constitutionally protected speech. The question on this issue is one of enforcement. The Bantham case saw Rhode Island utilizing the state apparatus to directly curtail speech on obscenity grounds, which you have to get clarification on with regard to Trump. Does him retweeting boycott calls serve as an informal endorsement of the curtailing of constitutionally protected speech? Same with Pence walking out of the game, that was in his official capacity as VP, that's another one you can point out as that informal endorsement of the curtailment of constitutionally protected speech.

If the NFL really wanted to fight it, i'm sure they would be able to bring out the knives, but that's just going into the lion's den based on how retarded Trump's diehard stans tend to be.

 

[GetTheseHands]

Considering that it's utilized as his official twitter in his capacity as president, his statements directly inflamed the issue to this point, and he sent Mike Pence to waste taxpayer money to grandstand on the issue, yeah I obviously think the president did that. People protested, sure, but the degree of protest directly increased when the president opened his cocksucker and got directly involved in the issue.

Don't see what this has to do with your stadium comparison but ok...

It bears itself out in the transcripts of their private meeting with the NFLPA and players. The rationale for ending the protest wasn't "We want you to be patriotic" it was "We want to get Trump off our back because he's hurting profits". That alone should be indicative of the urgency involved as a result of government intervention.

So yes, it was a nice try, because you don't have a rebuttal that amounts to anything more than "this is a nothingburger". Par for the course.

So you've completely abandoned your original stance that the NFL is not a private company to blame Trump for the decision.

1. The NFL is a job, not a public platform to protest America

2. If telling your players to stand during the national anthem HURTS your business...maybe the problem isn't the president

3. Trump hasn't infringed on any of the players right to protest, they can still do so, he just told them to stand during the anthem...at their jobs...what is it we're always told about private businesses again?

 

[mudflap mike]

The issue isn't that it was a private company, the issue is that damages were directly felt as a result of the President acting in his official capacity. De facto, it's a cut and dry case. De jure (by the law), it's a little more complicated. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Rhode Island is the relevant SCOTUS case for this issue. The government can not informally restrict speech on obscenity grounds that will also curtail constitutionally protected speech. The question on this issue is one of enforcement. The Bantham case saw Rhode Island utilizing the state apparatus to directly curtail speech on obscenity grounds, which you have to get clarification on with regard to Trump. Does him retweeting boycott calls serve as an informal endorsement of the curtailing of constitutionally protected speech? Same with Pence walking out of the game, that was in his official capacity as VP, that's another one you can point out as that informal endorsement of the curtailment of constitutionally protected speech.

If the NFL really wanted to fight it, i'm sure they would be able to bring out the knives, but that's just going into the lion's den based on how retarded Trump's diehard stans tend to be.

<{ByeHomer}>

ill stick to debating why mach was top 5 ever, jack

 

[deezy]

No it didn't, it blew up when Colin started the protest in 2016...when Obama was president

http://awfulannouncing.com/cbs/nfls...nly-fueled-white-viewers-younger-viewers.html

 

[Darth Nevets]

The issue isn't that it was a private company, the issue is that damages were directly felt as a result of the President acting in his official capacity. De facto, it's a cut and dry case. De jure (by the law), it's a little more complicated. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Rhode Island is the relevant SCOTUS case for this issue. The government can not informally restrict speech on obscenity grounds that will also curtail constitutionally protected speech. The question on this issue is one of enforcement. The Bantham case saw Rhode Island utilizing the state apparatus to directly curtail speech on obscenity grounds, which you have to get clarification on with regard to Trump. Does him retweeting boycott calls serve as an informal endorsement of the curtailing of constitutionally protected speech? Same with Pence walking out of the game, that was in his official capacity as VP, that's another one you can point out as that informal endorsement of the curtailment of constitutionally protected speech.

If the NFL really wanted to fight it, i'm sure they would be able to bring out the knives, but that's just going into the lion's den based on how retarded Trump's diehard stans tend to be.

Much like his hero Andrew Jackson, Trump has found that by violating (or feigning to violate) laws on a massive scale he can commit lesser violations easily. Whether he ever gets to the level of a borderline dictator who openly battles the Supreme Court is another matter, but no one will ever take him to task over this when he openly supports news networks and foreign governments that enrich him. It would be like trying Hitler for euthanizing his still very healthy dogs.

 

[Falsedawn]

Don't see what this has to do with your stadium comparison but ok...






So you've completely abandoned your original stance that the NFL is not a private company to blame Trump for the decision.

1. The NFL is a job, not a public platform to protest America

2. If telling your players to stand during the national anthem HURTS your business...maybe the problem isn't the president

3. Trump hasn't infringed on any of the players right to protest, they can still do so, he just told them to stand during the anthem...at their jobs...what is it we're always told about private businesses again?

My "original stance" was that the first amendment violation was in Trump's actions (hence me clarifying it as a first amendment violation in parentheses, like this). Sorry you missed it.

1. Literally means nothing

2. Also means nothing

3. The aggrieved party here isn't the players, it's the NFL. Please keep up.

 

[GetTheseHands]

The issue isn't that it was a private company, the issue is that damages were directly felt as a result of the President acting in his official capacity. De facto, it's a cut and dry case. De jure (by the law), it's a little more complicated. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Rhode Island is the relevant SCOTUS case for this issue. The government can not informally restrict speech on obscenity grounds that will also curtail constitutionally protected speech. The question on this issue is one of enforcement. The Bantham case saw Rhode Island utilizing the state apparatus to directly curtail speech on obscenity grounds, which you have to get clarification on with regard to Trump. Does him retweeting boycott calls serve as an informal endorsement of the curtailing of constitutionally protected speech? Same with Pence walking out of the game, that was in his official capacity as VP, that's another one you can point out as that informal endorsement of the curtailment of constitutionally protected speech.

If the NFL really wanted to fight it, i'm sure they would be able to bring out the knives, but that's just going into the lion's den based on how retarded Trump's diehard stans tend to be.

No it's not.

 

[Stargazer Rex]

Fuck all this shit, let's get back to some serious business.


Adam Cole is cheating on his GF!

 

[deezy]

Don't see what this has to do with your stadium comparison but ok...






So you've completely abandoned your original stance that the NFL is not a private company to blame Trump for the decision.

1. The NFL is a job, not a public platform to protest America

2. If telling your players to stand during the national anthem HURTS your business...maybe the problem isn't the president

3. Trump hasn't infringed on any of the players right to protest, they can still do so, he just told them to stand during the anthem...at their jobs...what is it we're always told about private businesses again?

Well if the nfl is a private company. ...they should pay for their own stadiums instead of relying on tax payers the lazy bums...

 

[Falsedawn]

No it's not.

Girl, bye.

 

[GetTheseHands]

Well if the nfl is a private company. ...they should pay for their own stadiums instead of relying on tax payers the lazy bums...

agreed

 

[RollSonnenRoll]

Dada never gave up! He never gave up! But he passed out from a heart attack