It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NFL vs ABC

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


The only "power" from Drumpf that I've noticed is how He has the ability to keep getting called "great businessman" after 5 or 6 bankruptcies. The 'power' is akin to Dave Rockefeller and His ability to get a new human heart about every 10 minutes..

These 2 things, I couldn't do. That is 'power'

www.esquire.com...

Drumpf didn't make the NFL™ players stand. He made some asinine tweet about them not HONORING OUR SERVICEMEN and WOMEN.. He failed to mention His 5 deferments for the Vietnam Money Waster..

Drumpf wouldn't know 'honor' even if She sold Him a bag of crushed up Adderall™ or whatever He is sniffing...

Durp...

Durp...




posted on May, 29 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Do you think both situations are Freedom of Speech issues?


Context matters because both issues don't involve that amendment, no one is stopping them from saying what they want. Roseanne said something stupid and the NFL is up in their feelings because the the people that watch it don't want to be reminded of the world outside.

Two different issues and neither touch on the Freedom of Speech. If someone was telling/barring the Rose or NFL from saying something, then it's a different issue and i believe we'd see a different scenario being played out.

TL;DR no.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

When the NFL refused to take a stand against the kneeling, I quit watching the NFL. Haven't seen a game since. The players exercised their free speech, the NFL exercised their free speech, and I exercised my free speech.

ABC cancelling Roseanne sucks, because I wanted to catch up on it by marathoning... I liked Roseanne. She exercised her free speech, ABC exercised their free speech, and now I will exercise my free speech by not watching anything on ABC.

Works real simple when you break it down.

I will say this: The NFL players chose to 'protest' on company time, forcing me to watch their protests if I wanted to watch the game. Roseanne tweeted on her own time, away from the show. So what she did did not affect my entertainment like the NFL players did.

We'll see how the exercise of free speech works out for everyone. The bad part of freely speaking is that one also freely accepts the consequences. As long as those consequences don't involve the government, it's still free speech.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

There are untold failures preceeding each success. Im unsure why his use of bankruptcy law to legally preserve assets so he has a horse to try to climb back on is a matter of ridicule?

He tried, failed, and learned. Seems to have worked out pretty well for him.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: tinner07




some pro athletes are not allowed to do crazy scary stuff like ride motorcycles

That was only one person - Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Seems he had a penchant for riding a motorcycle without a helmet . And one time , it didnt turnout too well for Big Ben...
Didnt have anything at all to do with Constitutional freedoms. The Steelers were trying to protect a player.



You mean protect their investment.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Two different companies; two different corporate policies. I don't see how either situation is at all comparable.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
ABC and the NFL have been partners since the 70's. I posited this yesterday:


Well that got me thinking. If there's merit that the NFL kneeling thing was blown out of proportion by Trump for past resentments, maybe this is payback for that. ABC and the NLF have been partners for decades.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

For the conspiratorial folk.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

If anything Roseanne is more blameless as she was not on the job. But I support the right of ABC and the NFL to do this.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

If anything Roseanne is more blameless as she was not on the job. But I support the right of ABC and the NFL to do this.


I'm tired of this "on the job" BS that you guys keep grasping on. There's clauses in contracts that require people to a code of conduct. That doesn't allow for certain activity at ANY time.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Not every contract is enforceable, though. For example, could your employer require you to avoid certain movies on your own time? Avoid certain restaurants? Could your employer demand that you avoid certain people? how about if all those people you had to avoid were of a certain race?

I personally have a problem with any contract that states what I can and cannot do on my own time. I can see exceptions in a few certain circumstances, but those circumstances would likely vary from individual to individual. My viewpoint is simply that if I am not being paid, my time belongs to me and I can do whatever I want with it as long as what I do does not directly impact my employer negatively.

The question then becomes, does Roseanne Barr's tweet directly and negatively affect her employer? I would say no as long as it does not affect ratings or majorly affect advertisers (and thus revenue). There was no effect on either, because there was no time for an effect to be discovered. I would be much more sympathetic toward ABC had they waited a couple weeks and reported that, due to either a substantial ratings drop or a loss of advertising revenue, the show would be dropped. That would be a direct and negative effect.

As to the NFL, the opposite is true. The protests directly and negatively affected the NFL via poorer attendance/ratings and decreased ticket sales. Yet, the NFL chose to ignore these direct and negative effects, despite the players' protests happening during their paid time. Either employer is well within their right to make their decisions, but their decisions were obviously based on personal political positions and not on any reasonable business decision.

I think that is the reason for the additional uproar against Roseanne's cancellation. When employers begin to make hire-and-fire decisions against employees based purely on political positions, it becomes a matter of morality rather than of legality. Personally? I would have quit ABC cold, any contract be damned, minutes after learning about the cancellation. I will not accept anyone's control over my life outside of the time I have agreed to sell them. I will be no one's slave.

Your mileage may vary.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Irrelevant in reality. If they violated the contract then she can sue. If not anyone's opinion doesn't matter. Contracts are just that. Agreements between two or more entities. Break them and the consequences that follow are a legal matter. I don't think she has a leg to stand on in court.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Irrelevant to the legality, yes. Morally, now, that's a different matter.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone



If I own a tv company and you work for me, don’t say racist s**t in a public forum

I guess it boils down to what different individuals/companies consider racist s**t.

ABC was just itching to act outraged.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: intrepid

Irrelevant to the legality, yes. Morally, now, that's a different matter.

TheRedneck


Morality in many cases is subjective.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Will the NFL ratings go back up as a result? I don't think so




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join