Free speech for all wrote:
basically BS wrote:
You do not understand the first amendment.
You are being insanely disingenuous by misrepresenting the comments of the opposing coach.
Someone tweeted "Cece is a man and his name is Craig Telfer. Men can't win women's championship. Trans gender is an excuse to cheat every single female out of a fair chance. Are steroids ok now @FPUniversity for all athletes? Whatever it takes to win?"
Coach Robinson commented "Exactly. Couldn't cut is as a male athlete"
Coach Emerson replied "Your behavior is unacceptable for a college coach. We will be demanding an explanation from your administration"
Coach Robinson replied "Don't come at me with that BS. THAT MAN SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING WOMENS RACES."
He's saying the athlete switched genders only to win at sports. That is such garbage and Coach Emerson is absolutely correct that's not acceptable behavior for a college coach to make that insult. Coach Emerson is not violating the first amendment by reaching out to the administration of staten island.
Coach Emerson is not violating the first amendment by reaching out to the administration of staten island. If any of you had a coach with even half the class, decency, and integrity of Coach Emerson maybe you all wouldn't be such angry, nasty, bigoted, crybabies.
Actually, you are the one who is misrepresenting the conversation. Pretty disingenuous to accuse someone of doing something and then immediately do it yourself.
In your post you deliberately left out that in response to Coach Robinson’s statement that Telfer “couldn’t cut it as a male athlete,” coach Emerson actually said: “Don’t ever, ever talk about one of my athletes again. Be a man. Pick up the phone.”
In response to THAT statement, Coach Robinson said, Don’t come at me with that BS. THAT MAN SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING WOMENS RACES”
After Robinson’s second tweet was when Coach Emerson replied “ Your behavior is unacceptable for a college coach. We will be demanding an explanation from your administration.”
Then you claim that I don’t understand the first amendment, but you never state what my understanding is of the first amendment, or what the “correct” meaning is of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. How disingenuous is that?
It’s not always easy to accurately discern a person’s motives from their statements, because, words can be vague and combinations of them can be ambiguous (capable of more than one meaning.). Let’s look at Coach Robinson’s statement that “Telfer couldn’t cut it as a male athlete.” Coach Emerson himself said that when Telfer was a male athlete, she was not committed or serious, missed practices for weeks at a time, and ultimately quit the team. After her sex reassignment surgery, when she came back out for the team as a Senior, she was fully committed and in every way exemplary. Doesn’t the statement “Telfer couldn’t cut it as a male athlete” accurately summarize these facts?
Or could he not alternatively have meant that, in contrast to Bruce Jenner, who got his sex change surgery long after winning the Olympic Decathlon, the probability that she would be far more successful competing against women could explain in part at least the timing of Telfer’s surgery (before her senior year of eligibility).
Nevertheless, regardless of what Robinson actually meant or what Telfer’s actual reason was getting her sex change, (usually it’s because people like her believe that they are women mistakenly put inside a man’s body), his right to make that comment is protected by the First Amendment, because it was part of a conversation about a matter of public concern, as correctly set forth earlier in this thread.
I neither misrepresented Coach Emerson’s comments nor accused him of violating the first amendment. By “reaching out” to Coach Robinson’s employer (actually he “demanded an explanation” and what he really is trying to do is invite them to retaliate against their employee) with the accusation that his (Robinson’s) making the comments he did were unacceptable behavior for a track coach, Emerson did not violate the First Amendment, himself, but he assaulted the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, which are not only Robinson’s but the rights of all citizens to comment publicly on matters of public concern without fear of potential retaliation from the government.
Let’s examine Coach Emerson's comments in context. ( First, I agree with the posts that contend that as it appears that Telfer won fair and square within the current NCAA rules, he deserves nothing but praise for supporting her and helping her achieve success.) In an interview in which the fairness of allowing her to compete against men was candidly discussed, Emerson admitted “people can have their opinions,”
So it is fair to surmise that it wasn’t the fact that coach Robinson was of the opinion that it was unfair for a Telfer to compete against women that was the problem, it was the fact that Robinson expressed his opinion in public, rather than “Being a man” by “picking up the phone.”
Reasonable people can debate as to whether these statements by Coach Emerson show class, decency and integrity, but what is undeniable is that they show a lack of respect for the rights of other people, like Coach Robinson, to publicly express their opinions.
BTW, to play your game, should we accuse coach Emerson of being a sexist because, if Coach Robinson were a woman, she wouldn’t have to pick up the phone?
(Sorry, I forgot how fun making stupid arguments can be!)
But I think a better way to say it is that otherwise classy, decent people of integrity can still be guilty of assaulting the first amendment, if they pick on people who express their opinions on matters of public concern, by trying to get them in trouble with their public employers.
If you have an understanding of the First Amendment that is supported by actual authority (instead of being pulled out of your ass) and that proves that last statement incorrect in anyway, you have yet to state it.