Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s fire a good coach because we don’t like his political views. Smart move.

And yeah we support free speech just in no meaningful way.

So we support a lot of values as parents and coaches, some of which will inevitably clash with free speech protection.

What if a boys coach tweets that women’s soccer is awful to watch? Or that BLM is just a front for rioting? Or that there is way too much illegal immigration in this country? We are not voting on whether to ban such speech. We are talking about whether clubs, like many other employers (including my own), offer some guidance on the acceptable use of social media by employees, and sanction those who do not abide by the guidelines.

Is free speech then a right which is only for people who own their own businesses?

Basics. The constitution prohibits only governmental restrictions on free speech. It does not prevent people from firing you for saying whatever you want. I can tell you that business owners also feel like they are not in a position to say whatever they want, because of commercial repercussions. Other people simply have good matters and discretion, which are not only rights, but privileges and tremendous assets for people who possess them. So again, you can express your views as you like, and you can deal with many others who will express themselves by not hiring or buying from you. It’s not complicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s fire a good coach because we don’t like his political views. Smart move.

And yeah we support free speech just in no meaningful way.

So we support a lot of values as parents and coaches, some of which will inevitably clash with free speech protection.

What if a boys coach tweets that women’s soccer is awful to watch? Or that BLM is just a front for rioting? Or that there is way too much illegal immigration in this country? We are not voting on whether to ban such speech. We are talking about whether clubs, like many other employers (including my own), offer some guidance on the acceptable use of social media by employees, and sanction those who do not abide by the guidelines.

Is free speech then a right which is only for people who own their own businesses?

Anonymous wrote:Let’s fire a good coach because we don’t like his political views. Smart move.

And yeah we support free speech just in no meaningful way.

So we support a lot of values as parents and coaches, some of which will inevitably clash with free speech protection. What if a boys coach tweets that women’s soccer is awful to watch? Or that BLM is just a front for rioting? Or that there is way too much illegal immigration in this country? We are not voting on whether to ban such speech. We are talking about whether clubs, like many other employers (including my own), offer some guidance on the acceptable use of social media by employees, and sanction those who do not abide by the guidelines.

Let’s fire a good coach because we don’t like his political views. Smart move.

And yeah we support free speech just in no meaningful way.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Is Julia Roberts an assistant? She's also great.

They made a movie about Julia Roberts. She was more than an assistant. Good movie though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still just want to know what was said...

You and me both

And me.

Anonymous wrote:I still just want to know what was said...

You and me both

I still just want to know what was said...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Arlington wants to be careful about coaches posting pretty political messages on their Twitter accounts.

People are allowed to freely on policies. Hope you understand that one day

Sure, and people are free to object to playing for people with those views, which I hope you cannot only understand one day, but express better than whatever gibberish you posted above.

And people are free to hire or fire coaches who express objectionable views. Liberty has all sorts of complications, doesn’t it? Try to understand that the first amendment protects individuals only from governmental restrictions on speech, not on commercial consequences for speech that private citizens find objectionable. So you are free to express yourself; prepare to take the consequences.

Yes, thank you for supporting my argument.

Yeah, somehow I missed all these nuances in “your argument.” Especially when they are nowhere evident in your original post. do you always take credit for real thinking by others, and then pretend they supported your argument? Clearly you don’t make much of a living in the rhetorical or logical arts. So the point remains that clubs ought to be careful about coaches posting political views on social media where they are also posting all about their players. There may be consequences.

It seems to me that it is you who extrapolated all sorts of illogical conclusions about the PP's intent and meaning from his simple statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Arlington wants to be careful about coaches posting pretty political messages on their Twitter accounts.

People are allowed to freely on policies. Hope you understand that one day

Sure, and people are free to object to playing for people with those views, which I hope you cannot only understand one day, but express better than whatever gibberish you posted above.

And people are free to hire or fire coaches who express objectionable views. Liberty has all sorts of complications, doesn’t it? Try to understand that the first amendment protects individuals only from governmental restrictions on speech, not on commercial consequences for speech that private citizens find objectionable. So you are free to express yourself; prepare to take the consequences.

Yes, thank you for supporting my argument.

Yeah, somehow I missed all these nuances in “your argument.” Especially when they are nowhere evident in your original post. do you always take credit for real thinking by others, and then pretend they supported your argument? Clearly you don’t make much of a living in the rhetorical or logical arts. So the point remains that clubs ought to be careful about coaches posting political views on social media where they are also posting all about their players. There may be consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the disagreements were about pineapple on pizza, i’d be inclined to agree and we’d all have a good laugh.. unfortunately they aren’t.

But what is it about? Political views? Anti-vaxxing? Racial bias?

Who knows - but none of those things would cause me to withdraw my kid from a team. If the coach started attempting to force his views on my kid that would be a different thing - but that doesn't seem to be the case here...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Arlington wants to be careful about coaches posting pretty political messages on their Twitter accounts.

People are allowed to freely on policies. Hope you understand that one day

Sure, and people are free to object to playing for people with those views, which I hope you cannot only understand one day, but express better than whatever gibberish you posted above.

And people are free to hire or fire coaches who express objectionable views. Liberty has all sorts of complications, doesn’t it? Try to understand that the first amendment protects individuals only from governmental restrictions on speech, not on commercial consequences for speech that private citizens find objectionable. So you are free to express yourself; prepare to take the consequences.

Yes, thank you for supporting my argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Arlington wants to be careful about coaches posting pretty political messages on their Twitter accounts.

People are allowed to freely on policies. Hope you understand that one day

Sure, and people are free to object to playing for people with those views, which I hope you cannot only understand one day, but express better than whatever gibberish you posted above.

My comment didn't stay anything against an objection to play. Thank you for supporting my argument.

TBH, i don't think it was as bad 5 years ago, so that probably explains it.

Anonymous wrote:If the disagreements were about pineapple on pizza, i’d be inclined to agree and we’d all have a good laugh.. unfortunately they aren’t.

But what is it about? Political views? Anti-vaxxing? Racial bias?