Officer Tatum's take on the football players boycotting.

[MGPcat]

You're right. And I have the right to freely express my views as well, and if someone is going to post this video, then that opens it up to criticism.

Agreed. Just like when you or I say something here or on another platform, that opens us up to criticism, as well. Officer Tatum criticized the Black football players at K-State for overreacting to a student's tweet, but he was not denying their right to have a platform.

Right.

[katlander]

They have every right to be pissed and react as they please. But it is getting old having politics brought into sports, and every other venue. I think their response was excessive and they have no right to dictate policy at K-State. It is the administration's job to handle demands and threats from the student body. Like officer Tatum said it was basically one guy exercising his right to make a comment, free speech. We all over react at times. Actually what he said is closer to the truth than the other side holding George Floyd up as a martyr and great man. He was not according to most standards.

Were the sources of Hank Aaron's threats ever known? It could have been disgruntled Babe Ruth fans. Possibly Democrats from New York. All I am saying is to not make too many assumptions. It also could have been the Klan or other extremists. Unlikely it was anyone from Kansas. We all have rights to our opinions, to speak our truths and pursue our happiness. Hank was met with death threats for daring to break a record held by a white icon. The kid at K-State was threatened with expulsion for taking an opposing view in a racially and politically charged environment. Both of these individuals were within their rights to do what they did.

We have to protect our rights and the only way to accomplish that is to respect the rights of others.

[WIldWIllieCat]

I got no problem with Tatum's take, as you can see there is an eager and receptive audience for what he had to say.

I'll say again, though, it wasn't just the "black athletes" and I also believe that today's transfer rules negate what he said about putting their future careers at risk.....in fact, I believe those rules are empowering or emboldening the actions of student athletes across the nation, not just at little old K-State.

[Kralicek]

They have every right to be pissed and react as they please. But it is getting old having politics brought into sports, and every other venue. I think their response was excessive and they have no right to dictate policy at K-State. It is the administration's job to handle demands and threats from the student body. Like officer Tatum said it was basically one guy exercising his right to make a comment, free speech. We all over react at times. Actually what he said is closer to the truth than the other side holding George Floyd up as a martyr and great man. He was not according to most standards.

Were the sources of Hank Aaron's threats ever known? It could have been disgruntled Babe Ruth fans. Possibly Democrats from New York. All I am saying is to not make too many assumptions. It also could have been the Klan or other extremists. Unlikely it was anyone from Kansas. We all have rights to our opinions, to speak our truths and pursue our happiness. Hank was met with death threats for daring to break a record held by a white icon. The kid at K-State was threatened with expulsion for taking an opposing view in a racially and politically charged environment. Both of these individuals were within their rights to do what they did.

We have to protect our rights and the only way to accomplish that is to respect the rights of others.

Well said.

[Opensource]

They have every right to be pissed and react as they please. But it is getting old having politics brought into sports, and every other venue. I think their response was excessive and they have no right to dictate policy at K-State. It is the administration's job to handle demands and threats from the student body. Like officer Tatum said it was basically one guy exercising his right to make a comment, free speech. We all over react at times. Actually what he said is closer to the truth than the other side holding George Floyd up as a martyr and great man. He was not according to most standards.

Were the sources of Hank Aaron's threats ever known? It could have been disgruntled Babe Ruth fans. Possibly Democrats from New York. All I am saying is to not make too many assumptions. It also could have been the Klan or other extremists. Unlikely it was anyone from Kansas. We all have rights to our opinions, to speak our truths and pursue our happiness. Hank was met with death threats for daring to break a record held by a white icon. The kid at K-State was threatened with expulsion for taking an opposing view in a racially and politically charged environment. Both of these individuals were within their rights to do what they did.

We have to protect our rights and the only way to accomplish that is to respect the rights of others.

Well said.

Well, this idea that individual rights are unlimited is being used to support an agenda that will take down American society. You don't have a right to kill someone. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowed theater. You don't have a right to speed in your car. So, we limit individual freedom all the time. So, how racist can you be? Typically the line is drawn between just speech and speech that inflicts harm on others.

We are seeing the same thing with mask use. People are arguing that not wearing a mask is a civil right. Beyond silly. The issue is should you have the freedom to no wear a mask when not wearing a mask inflicts harm on others? The, debate becomes how much harm.

[stlcatfan]

Well said.

Well, this idea that individual rights are unlimited is being used to support an agenda that will take down American society. You don't have a right to kill someone. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowed theater. You don't have a right to speed in your car. So, we limit individual freedom all the time. So, how racist can you be? Typically the line is drawn between just speech and speech that inflicts harm on others.

We are seeing the same thing with mask use. People are arguing that not wearing a mask is a civil right. Beyond silly. The issue is should you have the freedom to no wear a mask when not wearing a mask inflicts harm on others? The, debate becomes how much harm.

Who on here has said that our individual rights like freedom of speech are unlimited? Of course freedom of speech doesn't include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or posting death threats or threats of violence against another person. What am I missing here?

The point people on both sides have been making in this thread is that we have a right to free speech, but also when we do publicly make a statement about something, we should be willing to be criticized for what we do or say.

Colin Kaepernick has been very public in his words and actions about racial injustice in America. At the same time, he is being sponsored by Nike, whose products are being made by slave labor (e.g., Uighur Muslims) in Communist China. So it is only fair that Kaepernick should be called out and criticized for his hypocrisy. That is the First Amendment in action.

Speaking of Nike, isn't K-State athletics sponsored by that company? So will K-State athletes and coaches boycott wearing Nike apparel?

[WIldWIllieCat]

Well said.

Well, this idea that individual rights are unlimited is being used to support an agenda that will take down American society. You don't have a right to kill someone. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowed theater. You don't have a right to speed in your car. So, we limit individual freedom all the time. So, how racist can you be? Typically the line is drawn between just speech and speech that inflicts harm on others.

Have to say I disagree. I don't believe anyone is arguing that rights are absolute. Once the University and Athletic Dept. denounced the tweet, you would have a heckuva difficult go at convincing me that Mr. Loser McHateFace's words were responsible for demonstrable "harm". He can say what he wants and we all have the right to judge him and label him as we see fit. He's as relevant as the poo-flinging chimpanzees at your local zoo.

The mask thing is an entirely different issue IMO.

[Opensource]

Well, this idea that individual rights are unlimited is being used to support an agenda that will take down American society. You don't have a right to kill someone. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowed theater. You don't have a right to speed in your car. So, we limit individual freedom all the time. So, how racist can you be? Typically the line is drawn between just speech and speech that inflicts harm on others.

Have to say I disagree. I don't believe anyone is arguing that rights are absolute. Once the University and Athletic Dept. denounced the tweet, you would have a heckuva difficult go at convincing me that Mr. Loser McHateFace's words were responsible for demonstrable "harm". He can say what he wants and we all have the right to judge him and label him as we see fit. He's as relevant as the poo-flinging chimpanzees at your local zoo.

The mask thing is an entirely different issue IMO.

People argue they have a right to not wear a mask

People argue they have a right to use racist imagery and reinforce stereotypes with names and mascots of sport teams.

People argue they have a right to discriminate in their place of business based on religion.

The line has moved.