|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The coach's comments were inapproriate because the female player's ability in football is irrelevant in the discussion of a rape allegation.
Raping is a crime whether or not the alleged victim can play football, or kick a ball through the posts. It was a stupid comment because it gave the impression that he was saying that (if she was raped by a fellow player) she may have been raped because she was "not respected" by the players.
Stupid, stupid comment.
By the way, if I say something that reflects badly on my employers, they will fire me in a NY minute. I bet that is true of most employees. How many employees can say whatever he/she wants, much less on TV (with the employer's name attached) and know that his/her employer won't care?
Free speech does not include the promise of no repercussions. The 1st Ammendment is only to ensure the GOVERNMENT isn't precluding free speech of its citizens. A person is free to stand up in public and say "I hate blacks". That is his/her perogative under our Constitution. That doesn't mean that everyone else can't let that person know what they think of his/her speech, and keep clear of him/her if they don't like what was said.
You have the right to say whatever you want ... and face the consequences of that speech. That is what boycotts (which this website advocates on its homepage) are about. Boycotting others who say things this website doesn't like or agree with. Which is perfectly fine and in keeping with the 1st Ammendment.
Free speech counters free speech. The coach spoke, then a lot of others spoke, then his employer spoke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:25 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Barnett explained that he was trying to show support for Hnida but was asked a specific question about the player's talent and ability.
Obviously, Barnett was not well-educated. Lying to support women is standard practice in universities today. That's why male victims of domestic violence get no help and why we have a sexist Selective Service system.
Men are being raped every day by unjust laws, false accusations, and media-driven male-burnings. Just try and see if you can muster just a wee bit of concern about men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It could be that Barnett's comments were played out of context (there is a good chance the liberal media did this to him to try to make it seem like he was responding to the rape allegation with a comment about her football ability).
The comment sounds so off topic that I suspect that they did play it out of context. Say one minute they were talking about the rape allegation, and then the reporter asked what he thought of her football ability (totally irrelevant to the rape allegation) and then played them on TV with the irrelevant question missing. The way the tape sounds, it seems that this happened to Barnett and he was hoodwinked by the reporter.
I can't for the life of me imagine anyone would suggest what his comment (as played on TV) implies. I don't trust the media not to do this, so in that respect, I support Barnett. If what I suspect happened to him is true, I hope Barnett gets a tape or transcript of the entire exchange with the reporter and gets it played on air ... to both clear his name AND to show how media bias works. If I were him I'd be working on this and demand a full apopology from the reporter, TV outlets which played the tape, and the University president.
If Barnett wasn't quoted out of context, my previous post still stands, it was a stupid comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a good chance the liberal media did this
Well, - the media is not liberal as a whole
- the media will happily take anyone's comments out of context to make a story
Perfect example: the so called "Dean scream". The only reason you hear the 'yaargh' is because the media played the sound clip from the crowd-noise-reducing microphone, rather than what you heard if you were actually standing in the room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, you're right. There is bias on all sides of media reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:46 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
""Men are being raped every day by unjust laws, false accusations, and media-driven male-burnings"
Very true, and we've got the suicide statistics to prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The coach's comments were inapproriate because the female player's ability in football is irrelevant in the discussion of a rape allegation.
Can a feminist exhale without grotesquely distorting the facts or lying outright?
There was more than one implication in the statements by Hnida. In addition to claiming that she was raped, she made it clear that she believed she was resented and disliked by the other players because she was female. In responding to that implication, Coach Barnett was perfectly justified in pointing out that she was a lousy player. The other players should have resented her. (And no, sicko feminists, I am NOT justifying any possible rape.) No man, who performed at her level, would have been allowed to walk onto the team. Barnett was not justifying any possible rape. He was underscoring the fact that Hnida received standard preferential treatment because she was born with a vagina. To the extent that any players resented her, not for being female but for receiving preferential treatment, they were perfectly justified.
CU President Hoffman was attempting to silence Barnett and prevent him from defending the men on the team for resenting the preferential treatment that women receive.
It should be noted that Hoffman has now retracted her own statements about Coach Barnett. She had stated, "... He went on for two or three, four, I don't know how many minutes expounding on what a horrible player she was, essentially demeaning her before the world and saying because she's a bad player it was OK for the guys to rape her." This was a grotesque lie. She is now claiming that she was stating what the "public perception" was. This is another grotesque lie. It was certainly not the perception of much of the public, myself included. Hoffman should step down as president of CU.
And Lorianne should keep up the distortions and lies. She makes it so easy to point out what hypocrits and liers feminists are.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:06 PM February 21st, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the uncut interview and the coach was responding to a direct question about Hnida's ability as a kicker. He's now being held accountable for alleged events that were never reported to him. The team was forced to bend over backwards and accept a sub-standard female player who was off on her own ego trip. In high school she was the homecoming queen, and then suited up with the guys.
Of course, there's nothing like allegations of sexual assault to get attention. It really spiced up the SI article.
The alleged assault on her virginity sounds suspicious. Hnida escaped from the brutal rape when the guy answered his phone. Article here.
How many scandals will it take before people understand that men need just as much protection from women as women do from men? I also hope Hoffman resigns, and a policy of no more mixing genders on sport teams is adopted.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:47 PM February 23rd, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when I used to beleive EVERY woman's accusation(s) of rape.
But, now, I view almost every woman's accusation(s) of rape with much suspicion.
Am I right to do so?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The coach's comments were inapproriate because the female player's ability in football is irrelevant in the discussion of a rape allegation.
Which is exactly why he should not have been punished. He commented on her ability as a football player. His comment had nothing to do with rape. More so, his response was directed at Hnida's assertion that she was resented by other players on the team. She was (rightfully) resented because she was such a horrible player.
Free speech counters free speech. The coach spoke, then a lot of others spoke, then his employer spoke.
His employee punished him for what he said. This is not free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Barnett hopefully has a good attorney who can now pursue a libel and/or defamation of character suit against his university's feminist president Elizabeth Hoffman.
You would think the U.C. administration would be a little less cavalier about trying to censor individual's speech, especially since just two week's ago they failed in their efforts to deny a campus student group the right to stage a satirical "bake sale" to protest U.C.'s affirmative action policies.
Hoffman backed down on her allegations that the event was a form of discrimination when the school was threatened with legal action.
Ms. Hoffman seems to have the usual radical feminist mindset about "equality" and how it should be rationed...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His employee punished him for what he said. This is not free speech.
Yes it is free speech in the context of the Constitution's 1st Ammendment. The 1st Ammendment only gaurantees that the GOVERNMENT cannot punish or imprison you for for speaking freely.
We went through all this when various celebrities were complaining that that they were in danger of losing their free speech rights for speaking out on the war in Iraq. Their proof? Boycotts or threats of boycotts. They couldn't be more wrong. Boycotts and treats of boycotts ARE free speech in themselves.
You have a right to say anything you want ... but the 1st Ammendment does not quarantee that there will be no consequences to you for your speech. It only guaratees the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you or punish you for free speech.
As I stated above, this site's advocacy of boycotts against those who express views the memebers don't like, is a good example of free speech countering free speech and exactly what is so beautiful about our 1st Ammendment.
And .... if you go out and say bad things about your employer, or his products ... or give your employer a bad reputation by association with your speech .... your employer is NOT violating your 1st Ammendment rights by reprimanding you or firing you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorainne, once again you use the law to justify your arguements. However, the PC law would never allow an employer to fire or even suspend a woman's studies teacher for telling young women all men are rapists. I have been part of an inquiry when an extremely liberal proffessor decided to grade me poorly (a B) on an oral report because he "didn't like it". I spent about 40 hours on it, my mentor, who was the head of the English dept. loved it, and it followed all guidelines. I am also an excellent public speaker and so the deliverly was fine. He gave me no real answers when I questioned him, and when I went to his superior with not only my complaint but those of several others, I was told he had tenue and I could do nothing.
I think that the whole repricussion thing is only applied when convenient for those in power. The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, delivery and tenure...I should reread my posts before sending them. Ack. TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree bias is rampant on University campuses. However, this still doesn't violate free speech rights, as the 1st Ammendment doesn't protect against bias or other consequences of speech.
Again, you can say any unpopular thing you want and the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you. You can stand up at a NAACP meeting and say you hate blacks ... and reap the consequences. Or you can staud up at a KKK meeting and say you love blacks and hate whites ... and also reap the consequences. Either way, you've excercised your free speech rights.
Unpopular speech is not protected from any and all consequences ... only from government censor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A minor point of relevance in this discussion about free speech in higher academia --
Today it is virtually impossible for any individual who does not endorse or at least dissemble to appear to endorse the basic tenets of radical feminism to be hired for an upper administrative position at a college or university.
The real censorship is imposed during the hiring process, through the composition of committees that always have feminist "watchdogs" who will ensure that "unsuitable" candidates will be culled from the applicant pool.
As women, mostly those indoctrinated in radical feminism, have arrived at positions of power and influence in higher education, they have pursued the ironically labelled politics of "diversity" primarily by making sure that no dissenting voices are allowed into the upper echelons of administration.
C.U. President Elizabeth Hoffman's disregard for the facts and willingness to publicly LIE about Coach Barnett's actual statements are only too telling of what feminism has brought to the academy's "quest for truth."
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:42 AM February 22nd, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't understand how anyone can construe Coach Barnett's comments to be a defense of rape. To
me he was reacting and defending his program and
his players from attack. I don't undersand how
what he said was an attack on his employer or why
administrative leave was apprropriate. I'm no expert on law but since the University is a state run organization then they are a governmental body and the free speech issue would be legitimate here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I want to know is how can this girl can run her mouth to the press and not get sued for slander. She has just ruined the lives and reputation of the whole team, does so in a way that precludes them from legally exonerating themselves, but faces no consequences?
How many other people have gotten sued for saying much less damaging things?
I say that what the coach said was irrelevant. Nothing he could say would have been right, no matter what he said he would have been screwed. If he agreed with the girl, then he was betraying his team, if he stood up for his team he was a chauvanist who supports rape.
Lorrainne, the comment that Barnett made was perfectly appropriate in the context in which it was made. They were asking him if the other players treated her with respect, and he said to get respect you have to show worthiness. She sucked, so no she did not get respect. Note that any guy on the team who sucked would have been treated the same, or kicked off. I imagine that Barnett was told he could not kick her off, so she had to deal with the other.
Um, that is the way guys work, and if she didn't like that then she didn't need to be on the team. Who the hell is she to go demanding everything change because she showed up. Guys joke with each other, call each other names, to challange and test each other. As a tomboy, I can say if you give as good as you get guys will respect you. If you run around "terrified" then it only gets worse. She should have joined the field hockey team if she couldn't cope.
This whole thing pisses me off. The ONLY reason to come out and say the crap she did is bash the college and the team. She isn't pressing charges, she just wants to get even. As far as I know, this is illegal and punishable. The team, or the parents of the kids on the team, should press charges against her for slander. The president of the college was wrong.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
