China and the NBA/day 11/ Lebron weighs in

[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.

So...Your with me!?

I apologize i haven't seen your take but if you agree then yes. I no longer have cable and the nba pass is a very poor product designed to keep people buying cable anyway. This is no big loss for me but I know others cant go without the nba, if this was the jordan era I'd understand ha.

[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!?

I apologize i haven't seen your take but if you agree then yes. I no longer have cable and the nba pass is a very poor product designed to keep people buying cable anyway. This is no big loss for me but I know others cant go without the nba, if this was the jordan era I'd understand ha.

I'm actually enjoying this quite a bit.

Spoiler:

Bitter Seattle fan.

Honestly, I don't really plan on watching. Because my interest has greatly waned over the years.

[sikma42]

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.

Finally a reasonable post. Also, if you are worried about a foreign entity violating your freedom of speech laws you should look into Isreal and the anti BDS legislation that passed and has been getting ruled unconstitutional.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[ZemGOAT]

Never would have guessed the NBA will end up being that corrupt.

[cpower]

Never would have guessed the NBA will end up being that corrupt.

corrupt is the wrong term. people get promoted because of their performance. every single big company is us is doing the same thing.

[the sea duck]

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.

Not sure how I'm all over the place on this one. I was just responding to your comment. Perhaps you think I'm arguing something that I'm not.

What I'm saying is that it's problematic to allow a foreign government to indirectly suppress political opinions of US employees. It would be different if the US employees explicitly went against company policy or if the employer was reacting to consumer-driven choice. But in this case, they are not. A government is effectively attempting to suppress politic discourse. If it was the US government, there would be a clear conflict with the 1st amendment. Just because it is a foreign government, I don't see how we should tolerate this infringement upon the spirit of the law.

How is it worse than a domestic government? Domestically, the citizens have some amount of choice in their government policies. US citizens have none in foreign ones. That makes it worse.

Now, none of this is technically unconstitutional which is why I keep phrasing "the spirit of the law". The intent of the 1st amendment is to allow expression without government prohibition or punishment. Tolerating the same from a foreign influence is not any better.

[Fencer reregistered]

There’s no precedent (to my knowledge) of any of these guys regularly speaking on international geopolitics.. why would that suddenly be their area of expertise now?

I think that applies even to Kerr, and he was born in Beirut to a prominent father who was later murdered by terrorists.

[Czarking]

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.

As a Chinese person from Hong Kong, I did find Morey's comment irresponsible, ignorant and highly misinformed. I can also tell you that most Chinese fans and people in China are united in our support of the Chinese government's tough stance towards the NBA.

My wife and I share the opinion that the Chinese government's reaction to Morey's remarks, while a bit extreme, is also understandable. We side with the Chinese government because his comments add fuel to a crisis that is already hurting our country and city's social stability.

I love my country. So to hear people making ill-informed and deeply ignorant remarks about my city's internal affairs does bother me, as it does to a lot of people in China.

Don't forget, the NBA profits from the jerseys we buy, the subscription fee we pay to watch NBA games, and the exhibition matches we attend. It's not cheap either.

So if you're earning our country's hard earned cash, I reckon it's only fair you respect our culture, values, people by refraining from making ignorant and senseless remarks.

Just because it's okay in your culture, doesn't mean it's okay in mine.

Do you even know the first thing about what is actually happening in HK? Or are you just getting your information and making snap judgements based on garbage news sources such as the Clinton News Network (CNN) and Trump TV (Fox)? I do. And I can tell you it's nothing like what is being portrayed in the propaganda machine that is the Western media.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without inhibition or respect for cultural norms. If that were true, it would mean I am free to make racial slurs against people of colour. Why not? That's my right to free speech no?

Sent from my SM-C9000 using RealGM mobile app

[the sea duck]

There’s no precedent (to my knowledge) of any of these guys regularly speaking on international geopolitics.. why would that suddenly be their area of expertise now?

I think that applies even to Kerr, and he was born in Beirut to a prominent father who was later murdered by terrorists.

Feeling personally connected to or being knowledgeable about certain issues has not been the prerequisite for speaking out until now it seems.

[levon]

Why are we posting tweets of provocateurs and dilettantes on this thread? We should be able to express our opinions in this without making some **** who took 3 philosophy courses and now makes a living out of trolling online richer through his merch. Especially when these fools are only doing it to paint Trump in a better light. It completely hijacks the conversation. I suggest folks look at multiple tweets by these individuals and at least figure out the flavor of snake oil they're trying to sell before quoting them.

[the sea duck]

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.

As a Chinese person from Hong Kong, I did find Morey's comment irresponsible, ignorant and highly misinformed. I can also tell you that most Chinese fans and people in China are united in our support of the Chinese government's tough stance towards the NBA.

My wife and I share the opinion that the Chinese government's reaction to Morey's remarks, while a bit extreme, is also understandable. We side with the Chinese government because his comments add fuel to a crisis that is already hurting our country and city's social stability.

I love my country. So to hear people making ill-informed and deeply ignorant remarks about my city's internal affairs does bother me, as it does to a lot of people in China.

Don't forget, the NBA profits from the jerseys we buy, the subscription fee we pay to watch NBA games, and the exhibition matches we attend. It's not cheap either.

So if you're earning our country's hard earned cash, I reckon it's only fair you respect our culture, values, people by refraining from making ignorant and senseless remarks.

Just because it's okay in your culture, doesn't mean it's okay in mine.

Do you even know the first thing about what is actually happening in HK? Or are you just getting your information and making snap judgements based on garbage news sources such as the Clinton News Network (CNN) and Trump TV (Fox)? I do. And I can tell you it's nothing like what is being portrayed in the propaganda machine that is the Western media.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without inhibition or respect for cultural norms. If that were true, it would mean I am free to make racial slurs against people of colour. Why not? That's my right to free speech no?

Sent from my SM-C9000 using RealGM mobile app

What is your take on the people from HK and in China who disagree with you? And how do think they should express that disagreement?

[fbalmeida]

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.

As a Chinese person from Hong Kong, I did find Morey's comment irresponsible, ignorant and highly misinformed. I can also tell you that most Chinese fans and people in China are united in our support of the Chinese government's tough stance towards the NBA.

My wife and I share the opinion that the Chinese government's reaction to Morey's remarks, while a bit extreme, is also understandable. We side with the Chinese government because his comments add fuel to a crisis that is already hurting our country and city's social stability.

I love my country. So to hear people making ill-informed and deeply ignorant remarks about my city's internal affairs does bother me, as it does to a lot of people in China.

Don't forget, the NBA profits from the jerseys we buy, the subscription fee we pay to watch NBA games, and the exhibition matches we attend. It's not cheap either.

So if you're earning our country's hard earned cash, I reckon it's only fair you respect our culture, values, people by refraining from making ignorant and senseless remarks.

Just because it's okay in your culture, doesn't mean it's okay in mine.

Do you even know the first thing about what is actually happening in HK? Or are you just getting your information and making snap judgements based on garbage news sources such as the Clinton News Network (CNN) and Trump TV (Fox)? I do. And I can tell you it's nothing like what is being portrayed in the propaganda machine that is the Western media.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without inhibition or respect for cultural norms. If that were true, it would mean I am free to make racial slurs against people of colour. Why not? That's my right to free speech no?

Sent from my SM-C9000 using RealGM mobile app

Criticizing government violates a cultural norm?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I must say that the US position on Turkey and the Kurds is just as bad as anything the Chinese might be doing in HK.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[levon]

I must say that the US position on Turkey and the Kurds is just as bad as anything the Chinese might be doing in HK.

Easily. If you wanna talk about genocidal practices, the discussion doesn't go very far from home. It's impossible to talk about this without being knee-deep in hypocrisy; whether or not the folks accusing others of being hypocrites have the self-awareness to realize that is another matter.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

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.

Not sure how I'm all over the place on this one. I was just responding to your comment. Perhaps you think I'm arguing something that I'm not.

What I'm saying is that it's problematic to allow a foreign government to indirectly suppress political opinions of US employees. It would be different if the US employees explicitly went against company policy or if the employer was reacting to consumer-driven choice. But in this case, they are not. A government is effectively attempting to suppress politic discourse. If it was the US government, there would be a clear conflict with the 1st amendment. Just because it is a foreign government, I don't see how we should tolerate this infringement upon the spirit of the law.

How is it worse than a domestic government? Domestically, the citizens have some amount of choice in their government policies. US citizens have none in foreign ones. That makes it worse.

Now, none of this is technically unconstitutional which is why I keep phrasing "the spirit of the law". The intent of the 1st amendment is to allow expression without government prohibition or punishment. Tolerating the same from a foreign influence is not any better.

I mean, the Chinese government isn't going to want to work with and promote a brand that is bashing them, again, why would they? The reality is, the Chinese government does not abide by our laws. The US government can't force them to abide by our laws. When you are doing business in other countries, you have to go by their laws, that is how it works. Someone can't go open a gun shop in England and say "Second Amendment bitches!" It just doesn't work like that.

You can dislike China's government, that is fine, I think most people would agree they've got many issues(as do most governments), but we cannot force our laws to apply to them.

The NBA wants to keep their business in China, therefore they are trying to abide by their laws. Again, if the NBA just let all of their players, coaches, GMs, etc bash China, they'd lose out on millions(maybe more) of dollars and absolutely no good would come from it.

[JunkYardDog6ix]

I must say that the US position on Turkey and the Kurds is just as bad as anything the Chinese might be doing in HK.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

Lol. Why would you bring this up in this thread. The US , along with most other nations have condemned Turkey's aggression in Syria and Trump has threatened them with sanctions. The US has also clearly stated they never gave a green light for Turkey to proceed into Syria. How long did you want US forces to stay in Syria and risk their lives ? It is not the US job to be world police , especially when all other countries stand idle and criticize them simultaneously .

[the sea duck]

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.

Not sure how I'm all over the place on this one. I was just responding to your comment. Perhaps you think I'm arguing something that I'm not.

What I'm saying is that it's problematic to allow a foreign government to indirectly suppress political opinions of US employees. It would be different if the US employees explicitly went against company policy or if the employer was reacting to consumer-driven choice. But in this case, they are not. A government is effectively attempting to suppress politic discourse. If it was the US government, there would be a clear conflict with the 1st amendment. Just because it is a foreign government, I don't see how we should tolerate this infringement upon the spirit of the law.

How is it worse than a domestic government? Domestically, the citizens have some amount of choice in their government policies. US citizens have none in foreign ones. That makes it worse.

Now, none of this is technically unconstitutional which is why I keep phrasing "the spirit of the law". The intent of the 1st amendment is to allow expression without government prohibition or punishment. Tolerating the same from a foreign influence is not any better.

I mean, the Chinese government isn't going to want to work with and promote a brand that is bashing them, again, why would they? The reality is, the Chinese government does not abide by our laws. The US government can't force them to abide by our laws. When you are doing business in other countries, you have to go by their laws, that is how it works. Someone can't go open a gun shop in England and say "Second Amendment bitches!" It just doesn't work like that.

You can dislike China's government, that is fine, I think most people would agree they've got many issues(as do most governments), but we cannot force our laws to apply to them.

The NBA wants to keep their business in China, therefore they are trying to abide by their laws. Again, if the NBA just let all of their players, coaches, GMs, etc bash China, they'd lose out on millions(maybe more) of dollars and absolutely no good would come from it.

Yeah, I understand all that. And yet everything I said is still true.

[xdrta+]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without inhibition or respect for cultural norms. If that were true, it would mean I am free to make racial slurs against people of colour. Why not? That's my right to free speech no?

Sent from my SM-C9000 using RealGM mobile app

That's exactly what it means. And you are free to make all the racial slurs you want, people do it all the time without any fear of reprisal from the government. That doesn't mean you may not face consequences from private persons or employers.

[scrabbarista]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without inhibition or respect for cultural norms. If that were true, it would mean I am free to make racial slurs against people of colour. Why not? That's my right to free speech no?
?

Yes, actually. You are free to make such slurs. And yes, it is your right to free speech. At least, it would be if your speech was protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[Illmatic12]

There’s no precedent (to my knowledge) of any of these guys regularly speaking on international geopolitics.. why would that suddenly be their area of expertise now?

I think that applies even to Kerr, and he was born in Beirut to a prominent father who was later murdered by terrorists.

Feeling personally connected to or being knowledgeable about certain issues has not been the prerequisite for speaking out until now it seems.

Example?