China and the NBA/day 11/ Lebron weighs in

[dhsilv2]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

You really want to pay 100 bucks for a ticket to a game to have someone protesting next to you?

Look, I have the right to say a heck of a lot of things. I however self censor myself at work (maybe not as much as I should but still). I'm not going to common a female co worker's body or clothing. I'm not going to discuss if I went out drinking till 3am the night before. I'm also not going to shove my politics down their throats either. If someone asks, sure I might offer it up and sure I might make less aggressive and adamant statements, but again I'm going to be tactful.

This is how adults act. The reason so many people get annoyed with politics in sports is simply because people don't want politics in their entertainment. The nba should be aware of this and hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited. While sure some have been more expressive on issues they felt passionately about, I'm not sure where most athletes stand on any issue. I have zero idea where Pop stands on how to price metro area parking, how he wants to address taxes for roads with more and more cars going electric, is views on the 3 tier alcohol distribution system in most states, the illegality of shipping alcohol to Texas (he's a big wine guy so I'm rather sure he's got an opinion). It's ok I don't know these views from him and it's also OK that he has expressed his thoughts on our current president. He felt that was an issue he needed to speak on, great. He doesn't feel the need to discuss other issues, maybe he's just not as passionate about them? We're all allowed to be more or less passionate about some topics right? If I want to end AIDs am I a jerk for not talking as much about ending cancer or ALS?

If someone asks... being the point. There must be a freedom to ask. Today, the NBA blocked a reporter from asking a legitimate question.

Source?

[RIP Kobe]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking of reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

Its truly amazing to me how many people believe "freedom of speech" means you can say absolutely anything you want with no consequences.

freedom of speech applies to everyone but white people.

[fbalmeida]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking of reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

Man, I sympathize with the sentiment so much. I have to nitpick that NBA arenas aren't really "the public square," though. I don't think he/owners should be obligated to allow such statements within their arenas. I would just expect them to treat all political statements equally, so as to make it about the in-arena product and not the preservation of communist approval.

You're right about everything else. Self-censorship looks like the order of the day, and it should be crushed just like you say.

What's up with blocking reporters? I haven't heard about that yet.

This happened... This deserves everyone's attention. As China opens up to the world, we should welcome its trade, culture, and people, and with it, foster prosperity of all kinds. But why on earth must it come at the expense of an acritical and agnostic position - or worse- outright self-censorship - on the Chinese government and its foreign policy?

**** that.

Read on Twitter

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking of reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

Its truly amazing to me how many people believe "freedom of speech" means you can say absolutely anything you want with no consequences.

freedom of speech applies to everyone but white people.

No need to turn this into a race thing.

[AZNKidd]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

You really want to pay 100 bucks for a ticket to a game to have someone protesting next to you?

Look, I have the right to say a heck of a lot of things. I however self censor myself at work (maybe not as much as I should but still). I'm not going to common a female co worker's body or clothing. I'm not going to discuss if I went out drinking till 3am the night before. I'm also not going to shove my politics down their throats either. If someone asks, sure I might offer it up and sure I might make less aggressive and adamant statements, but again I'm going to be tactful.

This is how adults act. The reason so many people get annoyed with politics in sports is simply because people don't want politics in their entertainment. The nba should be aware of this and hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited. While sure some have been more expressive on issues they felt passionately about, I'm not sure where most athletes stand on any issue. I have zero idea where Pop stands on how to price metro area parking, how he wants to address taxes for roads with more and more cars going electric, is views on the 3 tier alcohol distribution system in most states, the illegality of shipping alcohol to Texas (he's a big wine guy so I'm rather sure he's got an opinion). It's ok I don't know these views from him and it's also OK that he has expressed his thoughts on our current president. He felt that was an issue he needed to speak on, great. He doesn't feel the need to discuss other issues, maybe he's just not as passionate about them? We're all allowed to be more or less passionate about some topics right? If I want to end AIDs am I a jerk for not talking as much about ending cancer or ALS?

The issues are manifold but at the end of the day this is a PR issue more than anything else as there are absolutely zero legal consequences if the NBA does one thing or the other. Just playing devils advocate here as I’m in the camp of reprimanding any action that panders to the CCP: freedom of expression also includes the freedom of how you use your money/invest. So in this sense, if we reprimand the NBA for kowtowing to the CCP for money reasons, isn’t that being a bit hypocritical because the NBA is also exercising one form of expression/individual liberty? Again, just playing devils advocate.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking of reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

Its truly amazing to me how many people believe "freedom of speech" means you can say absolutely anything you want with no consequences.

I'm not refusing to accept consequences that are attached to opinions. And there are perfectly reasonable terms for restrictions of speech, having to do with time, place, and manner. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept the expansion of the scope of censorship to a point where perfectly legitimate questions from CNN reporters are preemptively denied a response by NBA handlers.

So do you think the NBA should be forced to answer questions that would harm their business?

[scrabbarista]

hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited.

I like to consume sports in a way that is free of political statements. I go to sports for distraction. But people need to be allowed to be human beings with opinions on things that matter. I don't want any employer anywhere to limit the speech of its employees when they're off the job. (And I don't think it's fair to say NBA personalities are "always on the job.") There is always going to be error on the margins - too little or too much leeway - but I always want that error to be on the side of free expression. To coerce someone into a lane of thought/speech is simply wrong. I understand the NBA is a product - and, as I said, I like that product when it's politics-free - but I want NBA employees and affiliates to provide that product (basketball), not to be that product (human beings with no controversial thoughts to share). Or, as I've put it elsewhere, I like to have people talking to me, not corporations.

As an aside, I was working at a chain restaurant in 2016, and one of my coworkers posted a tweet the day before the election that said, "Trump better not win tomorrow, or white people are going to be getting some poison in their food." (He was in high school. And I paraphrase. It was funnier than that, but that was pretty much the exact content of the tweet. He may have actually threatened death. I only saw the tweet once.) Corporate HQ saw it and he got fired. My reaction when the owner of the restaurant showed me the tweet was apparently priceless. Anyway, it was kind of funny and kind of crazy, but it was definitely a pretty clear case of the kind of speech an employer should restrict! Lol.

[G35]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

You really want to pay 100 bucks for a ticket to a game to have someone protesting next to you?

Look, I have the right to say a heck of a lot of things. I however self censor myself at work (maybe not as much as I should but still). I'm not going to common a female co worker's body or clothing. I'm not going to discuss if I went out drinking till 3am the night before. I'm also not going to shove my politics down their throats either. If someone asks, sure I might offer it up and sure I might make less aggressive and adamant statements, but again I'm going to be tactful.

This is how adults act. The reason so many people get annoyed with politics in sports is simply because people don't want politics in their entertainment. The nba should be aware of this and hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited. While sure some have been more expressive on issues they felt passionately about, I'm not sure where most athletes stand on any issue. I have zero idea where Pop stands on how to price metro area parking, how he wants to address taxes for roads with more and more cars going electric, is views on the 3 tier alcohol distribution system in most states, the illegality of shipping alcohol to Texas (he's a big wine guy so I'm rather sure he's got an opinion). It's ok I don't know these views from him and it's also OK that he has expressed his thoughts on our current president. He felt that was an issue he needed to speak on, great. He doesn't feel the need to discuss other issues, maybe he's just not as passionate about them? We're all allowed to be more or less passionate about some topics right? If I want to end AIDs am I a jerk for not talking as much about ending cancer or ALS?

The only problem I have with Kerr, Pop, Curry, Lebron, or whoever is that if you start talking politics don't back off when it gets to a topic that you are uncomfortable talking about.

The internet never forgets.

So once you start down a path, there's no turning back.

That is why politics should not be a part of sports. Sports (and to a lighter extent) entertainment should not have politics in them. We use to know that in this country. I was just watching Terminator and Terminator 2 and you could see there were some social justice themes in the movie, but they made the movie in a way that it did not detract from the entertainment.

Now, politics are the main theme, and it seems like sports and entertainment are the sidebars. Its a turn off as a fan, just because you are talented in one aspect of life does not make you an expert or your opinion the guide for society.

When I was a teenager I was influenced by entertainers, now as an adult, I would rather form my own opinions without all the rhetoric......

[the sea duck]

Its truly amazing to me how many people believe "freedom of speech" means you can say absolutely anything you want with no consequences.

The spirit of the law is that consequences don't come from the government based upon your views. In this case, consequences would be coming from a foreign government (indirectly) due to political views. Seems a worse infraction, no?

Consequences can come from your employer.

I used this example earlier, but I don't anticipate everyone has read every post over this entire topic, so I'll reiterate.

Lets say you own a restaurant/bar, and you have a bartender who is getting in heated political debates with a bunch of customers and driving them off. Are you going to let this person ruin your business while saying "free speech is too important!" or are you going to tell them to stop talking politics/fire them?

Right, but in this case the consequences aren't from anything other than a government entity. The whole idea of the 1st amendment was to prohibit government from infringing upon speech, or punishing speech and expression it didn't like. The pressure here is not coming from the US government, but a foreign government. While not explicitly prohibited, seems an even worse scenario than a domestic government restricting expression, no?

[GusFring]

The nba panders to sociopaths/billionaires/players that make an irresponsible amount of money. This is no surprise. It is a pathetic pr nightmare the nba deserves. If you guys are offended at this anti free speech pro dictatorship like behavior then don't support the nba anymore. Don't buy the pass, dont buy tickets or merch and pirate all the games. The nba doesn't have defense anyway and its all clickbait free agency bs over the game.

[fbalmeida]

Its truly amazing to me how many people believe "freedom of speech" means you can say absolutely anything you want with no consequences.

I'm not refusing to accept consequences that are attached to opinions. And there are perfectly reasonable terms for restrictions of speech, having to do with time, place, and manner. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept the expansion of the scope of censorship to a point where perfectly legitimate questions from CNN reporters are preemptively denied a response by NBA handlers.

So do you think the NBA should be forced to answer questions that would harm their business?

Reporters should be free to ask questions, however inconvenient they may be. Freedom to ask, and freedom to respond, or withhold reply. Here the NBA preempted the question from happening.

[Czarking]

The spirit of the law is that consequences don't come from the government based upon your views. In this case, consequences would be coming from a foreign government (indirectly) due to political views. Seems a worse infraction, no?

Consequences can come from your employer.

I used this example earlier, but I don't anticipate everyone has read every post over this entire topic, so I'll reiterate.

Lets say you own a restaurant/bar, and you have a bartender who is getting in heated political debates with a bunch of customers and driving them off. Are you going to let this person ruin your business while saying "free speech is too important!" or are you going to tell them to stop talking politics/fire them?

Right, but in this case the consequences aren't from anything other than a government entity. The whole idea of the 1st amendment was to prohibit government from infringing upon speech, or punishing speech and expression it didn't like. The pressure here is not coming from the US government, but a foreign government. While not explicitly prohibited, seems an even worse scenario than a domestic government restricting expression, no?

https://youtu.be/FRLLW0BSa84

Sent from my SM-C9000 using RealGM mobile app

[dhsilv2]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

You really want to pay 100 bucks for a ticket to a game to have someone protesting next to you?

Look, I have the right to say a heck of a lot of things. I however self censor myself at work (maybe not as much as I should but still). I'm not going to common a female co worker's body or clothing. I'm not going to discuss if I went out drinking till 3am the night before. I'm also not going to shove my politics down their throats either. If someone asks, sure I might offer it up and sure I might make less aggressive and adamant statements, but again I'm going to be tactful.

This is how adults act. The reason so many people get annoyed with politics in sports is simply because people don't want politics in their entertainment. The nba should be aware of this and hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited. While sure some have been more expressive on issues they felt passionately about, I'm not sure where most athletes stand on any issue. I have zero idea where Pop stands on how to price metro area parking, how he wants to address taxes for roads with more and more cars going electric, is views on the 3 tier alcohol distribution system in most states, the illegality of shipping alcohol to Texas (he's a big wine guy so I'm rather sure he's got an opinion). It's ok I don't know these views from him and it's also OK that he has expressed his thoughts on our current president. He felt that was an issue he needed to speak on, great. He doesn't feel the need to discuss other issues, maybe he's just not as passionate about them? We're all allowed to be more or less passionate about some topics right? If I want to end AIDs am I a jerk for not talking as much about ending cancer or ALS?

The issues are manifold but at the end of the day this is a PR issue more than anything else as there are absolutely zero legal consequences if the NBA does one thing or the other. Just playing devils advocate here as I’m in the camp of reprimanding any action that panders to the CCP: freedom of expression also includes the freedom of how you use your money/invest. So in this sense, if we reprimand the NBA for kowtowing to the CCP for money reasons, isn’t that being a bit hypocritical because the NBA is also exercising one form of expression/individual liberty? Again, just playing devils advocate.

So if I boycott the nba for not speaking out, I'm effectively boycotting them for exercising their right to free expression which includes not speaking at all?

I'd personally agree with this. Without getting deep into this, positive language and actions can do a lot more good than decisive or confrontational ones. Supporting free speech is effectively taking a political stance against china. One however does not need to hammer home that message, subtly and nuance are heard over time and if you have a right to speak freely, not speaking is absolutely part of that. Nobody has an obligation to share their views on anything.

[AZNKidd]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

You really want to pay 100 bucks for a ticket to a game to have someone protesting next to you?

Look, I have the right to say a heck of a lot of things. I however self censor myself at work (maybe not as much as I should but still). I'm not going to common a female co worker's body or clothing. I'm not going to discuss if I went out drinking till 3am the night before. I'm also not going to shove my politics down their throats either. If someone asks, sure I might offer it up and sure I might make less aggressive and adamant statements, but again I'm going to be tactful.

This is how adults act. The reason so many people get annoyed with politics in sports is simply because people don't want politics in their entertainment. The nba should be aware of this and hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited. While sure some have been more expressive on issues they felt passionately about, I'm not sure where most athletes stand on any issue. I have zero idea where Pop stands on how to price metro area parking, how he wants to address taxes for roads with more and more cars going electric, is views on the 3 tier alcohol distribution system in most states, the illegality of shipping alcohol to Texas (he's a big wine guy so I'm rather sure he's got an opinion). It's ok I don't know these views from him and it's also OK that he has expressed his thoughts on our current president. He felt that was an issue he needed to speak on, great. He doesn't feel the need to discuss other issues, maybe he's just not as passionate about them? We're all allowed to be more or less passionate about some topics right? If I want to end AIDs am I a jerk for not talking as much about ending cancer or ALS?

The only problem I have with Kerr, Pop, Curry, Lebron, or whoever is that if you start talking politics don't back off when it gets to a topic that you are uncomfortable talking about.

The internet never forgets.

So once you start down a path, there's no turning back.

That is why politics should not be a part of sports. Sports (and to a lighter extent) entertainment should not have politics in them. We use to know that in this country. I was just watching Terminator and Terminator 2 and you could see there were some social justice themes in the movie, but they made the movie in a way that it did not detract from the entertainment.

Now, politics are the main theme, and it seems like sports and entertainment are the sidebars. Its a turn off as a fan, just because you are talented in one aspect of life does not make you an expert or your opinion the guide for society.

When I was a teenager I was influenced by entertainers, now as an adult, I would rather form my own opinions without all the rhetoric......

Putting money/business co side ration aside, which I agree is the primary concern, your last paragraph is actually a reason why politics should be a part of sports. Many of these superstars are idols and kids look up to them as role models. This is why they were so vocal about BLM LGBTQ and other national politics issue. However, when it comes to this whole China thing, the issues are just too complex and too many layers to peel for anybody to make a straightforward concrete statement.

[Cactus Jack]

The nba panders to sociopaths/billionaires/players that make an irresponsible amount of money. This is no surprise. It is a pathetic pr nightmare the nba deserves. If you guys are offended at this anti free speech pro dictatorship like behavior then don't support the nba anymore. Don't buy the pass, dont buy tickets or merch and pirate all the games. The nba doesn't have defense anyway and its all clickbait free agency bs over the game.

So...Your with me!?

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

The spirit of the law is that consequences don't come from the government based upon your views. In this case, consequences would be coming from a foreign government (indirectly) due to political views. Seems a worse infraction, no?

Consequences can come from your employer.

I used this example earlier, but I don't anticipate everyone has read every post over this entire topic, so I'll reiterate.

Lets say you own a restaurant/bar, and you have a bartender who is getting in heated political debates with a bunch of customers and driving them off. Are you going to let this person ruin your business while saying "free speech is too important!" or are you going to tell them to stop talking politics/fire them?

Right, but in this case the consequences aren't from anything other than a government entity. The whole idea of the 1st amendment was to prohibit government from infringing upon speech, or punishing speech and expression it didn't like. The pressure here is not coming from the US government, but a foreign government. While not explicitly prohibited, seems an even worse scenario than a domestic government restricting expression, no?

All the more reason for the US government to step in and support US companies.

But the US government's official stance is: I don't care and I really don't like Gregg Popovich or Steve Kerr

[JeepCSC]

The issues are manifold but at the end of the day this is a PR issue more than anything else as there are absolutely zero legal consequences if the NBA does one thing or the other. Just playing devils advocate here as I’m in the camp of reprimanding any action that panders to the CCP: freedom of expression also includes the freedom of how you use your money/invest. So in this sense, if we reprimand the NBA for kowtowing to the CCP for money reasons, isn’t that being a bit hypocritical because the NBA is also exercising one form of expression/individual liberty? Again, just playing devils advocate.

Framed this way does make one think of the American businesses that looked for profit in pre-war Germany.

Closer to comparison though is likely the NK-Sony standoff over a few years ago. Back then, Sony blinked and pulled the movie, before public pressure forced them to release it streaming after a truncated theatre run. There, the public was more or less united that dictatorships shouldn’t police our media to shape public relations.

But North Korea is an isolated backwater with little-to-no-market value for us. China is not that. So yes, we are collectively being hypocrites on this matter. Principles go as far as your wallet will allow. China knows that and we are seeing that here and now.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

The spirit of the law is that consequences don't come from the government based upon your views. In this case, consequences would be coming from a foreign government (indirectly) due to political views. Seems a worse infraction, no?

Consequences can come from your employer.

I used this example earlier, but I don't anticipate everyone has read every post over this entire topic, so I'll reiterate.

Lets say you own a restaurant/bar, and you have a bartender who is getting in heated political debates with a bunch of customers and driving them off. Are you going to let this person ruin your business while saying "free speech is too important!" or are you going to tell them to stop talking politics/fire them?

Right, but in this case the consequences aren't from anything other than a government entity. The whole idea of the 1st amendment was to prohibit government from infringing upon speech, or punishing speech and expression it didn't like. The pressure here is not coming from the US government, but a foreign government. While not explicitly prohibited, seems an even worse scenario than a domestic government restricting expression, no?

I feel like you're kind of all over the place on this one.

To start, you talk about how the idea of the 1st amendment was to prohibit the government from infringing upon free speech, but then openly admitted the pressure here is not coming from the US government. Obviously our laws do not apply to other governments. The US cannot force the Chinese government to abide by our free speech laws. Because of this, it is directly affecting a business(the NBA). Of course the Chinese government isn't going to support a brand that would bash them, why would they? The NBA is making a business decision to keep people quiet on it, because they stand to lose millions(maybe more) if they don't.

I also don't see how a foreign government not abiding by our free speech laws would be a worse scenario than our own government not abiding by them, but to each their own.

[dhsilv2]

With this debacle, the bug of self-censorship, specifically the suppression of public criticism of the PRC within the NBA, has peered its ugly head into the public square.

It needs to be crushed like a cockroach, immediately, impeccably, and without hesitation. Freedom of speech is too important.

If Adam Silver condones the recent blocking reporters when they ask legitimate questions, or kicking out fans with signs in support of Hong Kong protesters, he should resign.

You really want to pay 100 bucks for a ticket to a game to have someone protesting next to you?

Look, I have the right to say a heck of a lot of things. I however self censor myself at work (maybe not as much as I should but still). I'm not going to common a female co worker's body or clothing. I'm not going to discuss if I went out drinking till 3am the night before. I'm also not going to shove my politics down their throats either. If someone asks, sure I might offer it up and sure I might make less aggressive and adamant statements, but again I'm going to be tactful.

This is how adults act. The reason so many people get annoyed with politics in sports is simply because people don't want politics in their entertainment. The nba should be aware of this and hopefully players and coaches keep their views limited. While sure some have been more expressive on issues they felt passionately about, I'm not sure where most athletes stand on any issue. I have zero idea where Pop stands on how to price metro area parking, how he wants to address taxes for roads with more and more cars going electric, is views on the 3 tier alcohol distribution system in most states, the illegality of shipping alcohol to Texas (he's a big wine guy so I'm rather sure he's got an opinion). It's ok I don't know these views from him and it's also OK that he has expressed his thoughts on our current president. He felt that was an issue he needed to speak on, great. He doesn't feel the need to discuss other issues, maybe he's just not as passionate about them? We're all allowed to be more or less passionate about some topics right? If I want to end AIDs am I a jerk for not talking as much about ending cancer or ALS?

The only problem I have with Kerr, Pop, Curry, Lebron, or whoever is that if you start talking politics don't back off when it gets to a topic that you are uncomfortable talking about.

The internet never forgets.

So once you start down a path, there's no turning back.

That is why politics should not be a part of sports. Sports (and to a lighter extent) entertainment should not have politics in them. We use to know that in this country. I was just watching Terminator and Terminator 2 and you could see there were some social justice themes in the movie, but they made the movie in a way that it did not detract from the entertainment.

Now, politics are the main theme, and it seems like sports and entertainment are the sidebars. Its a turn off as a fan, just because you are talented in one aspect of life does not make you an expert or your opinion the guide for society.

When I was a teenager I was influenced by entertainers, now as an adult, I would rather form my own opinions without all the rhetoric......

Why should someone have a political opinion on every subject? I'll tell you and anyone listening that trade wars and loose loose and bad policy in my view. I'm not going to offer you an opinion on what the top marginal tax rate in Canada should be. I don't have a freaking clue what their rates are, their budget, their costs, etc. I don't know or care. I don't know everything I'd like to know about Hong Kong so I would rather not share my opinion there either...it would be an opinion that is not well enough informed to not antiquity be called "ignorant". That isnt to say I'm no informed or that I don't have an opinion. Conversely, there are some political issues I simply don't care about. I'm just not going to waste my time on them.

Just like an activist can have one disease they advocate to get research money for, I can limit my political statements to those areas I feel need my voice and time. This is no different than this topic. I highly doubt Kerr or Pop have thought 1% as much about China and Hong Kong as they have about the character they would expect from the President of their country. If so I'd expect them to be 100x more likely to speak on that subject.

[fbalmeida]

Consequences can come from your employer.

I used this example earlier, but I don't anticipate everyone has read every post over this entire topic, so I'll reiterate.

Lets say you own a restaurant/bar, and you have a bartender who is getting in heated political debates with a bunch of customers and driving them off. Are you going to let this person ruin your business while saying "free speech is too important!" or are you going to tell them to stop talking politics/fire them?

Right, but in this case the consequences aren't from anything other than a government entity. The whole idea of the 1st amendment was to prohibit government from infringing upon speech, or punishing speech and expression it didn't like. The pressure here is not coming from the US government, but a foreign government. While not explicitly prohibited, seems an even worse scenario than a domestic government restricting expression, no?

https://youtu.be/FRLLW0BSa84

Sent from my SM-C9000 using RealGM mobile app

There you have it. Chinese state-run TV suggesting that criticism of Chinese foreign policy is not acceptable.

Well, I beg the pardon of the good people running the show of the Chinese government, but they're going to find out the hard way that in the west, criticizing another country's foreign policy, is acceptable.