Escobar's Anti-Gay Eye Black Slur

[CA-ORIOLE]

It is a team suspension not an MLB one. I don't think appealing is an option.

I wonder how much playing time they will give him the rest of the way. He is an obvious non-tender candidate in the offseason.

He said he wasn't going to appeal it and it least sounds like he's taken responsibility for it in addition to agreeing to attend sensitivity training. Sounds like he's just an immature dummy more than anything else. Still, a pretty talented player.

[weams]

Also, nitpicky, but this actually isn't America, considering it happened in Toronto (not to imply that Canada doesn't have free speech).

Or isn't a part of America as a whole

[srock]

I have nothing against neither gay people nor free speech.

Given today's environment of political correctness, this was a pretty stupid thing for a person in the public eye to do. But, that does not alter his right to speak on any subject he chooses nor to make whatever statement he feels is important.

This is America.

Free speech means the government can't impinge on his right to express himself. There is no rule saying his employer can't stop him from expressing himself. In fact, it is in the interest of the Blue Jays to do so and they have.

[eb45]

I have nothing against neither gay people nor free speech.

Given today's environment of political correctness, this was a pretty stupid thing for a person in the public eye to do. But, that does not alter his right to speak on any subject he chooses nor to make whatever statement he feels is important.

This is America.

Toronto is not America, and Canada's laws on hate speech are different from America's (in that they exist and aren't covered under a blanket provision for "free speech"). They're a bit nebulous in this case but considering he was on TV I think a criminal case could legitimately be brought against Escobar under Canadian law.

IG also makes an excellent point re: this happening at the ballpark.

[OFFNY]

Free speech certainly doesn't apply when you are representing an employer, if he had been working a normal everyday job and showed up with a slur written on a shirt, he likely would have been terminated immediately. And I'd point out that just because you have free speech doesn't mean you should use it to act like a backwards douchebag.

Also, nitpicky, but this actually isn't America, considering it happened in Toronto (not to imply that Canada doesn't have free speech).

Or, isn't a part of America as a whole.

O

Canada isn't a real country, anyway.

O

[video=youtube;bOR38552MJA]

[Danielos38]

This could also be considered hate speech which is NOT protected by the Constitution. The freedom of expression is often applied wider than its range.

[Crazysilver03]

Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos told Greg Brady and Jim Lang on Sportsnet 590 the FAN that Yunel Escobar’s decision to write a homophobic slur on his eye black was “stupid, selfish, shameful, insensitive.” Anthopoulos acknowledged that he thought about suspending Escobar for a year or releasing him (hat tip to John Lott of the National Post).

Escobar is gone the day the season ends. Within him banished from Atlanta, and soon Toronto, I wonder who will be willing to put up with his shenanigans.

[Satyr3206]

I have nothing against neither gay people nor free speech.

Given today's environment of political correctness, this was a pretty stupid thing for a person in the public eye to do. But, that does not alter his right to speak on any subject he chooses nor to make whatever statement he feels is important.

This is America.

It used to be America. Now it's something my Grandparents wouldn't recognize.

[TGO]

This could also be considered hate speech which is NOT protected by the Constitution. The freedom of expression is often applied wider than its range.

This is positively false if you're talking about the US. The only exceptions to freedom of speech are "fighting words," "incitement to riot," and defamation. The fighting words doctrine is the only one that could plausibly apply and it's extremely narrow.

Even in Canada, I think (but am not positive) that something can be considered hate speech only if it is inciting hatred and is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. While Escobar was stupid and juvenile I don't think you can plausibly argue that he was going to cause anyone to physically attack gay people or start a riot.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Obscene speech too.

[CA-ORIOLE]

This could also be considered hate speech which is NOT protected by the Constitution. The freedom of expression is often applied wider than its range.

Well, I'm not one of the plethora of Lawyers on Orioles/Lawyer Hangout (maybe one can chime in here), but I'd say this is wrong. Hate speech IS protected as far as I know by the US constitution (with the limited exceptions of inciting riot/defamation etc.). Obviously what an employer could do or would find to be objectionable with an employee is a different issue.

[eb45]

This is positively false if you're talking about the US. The only exceptions to freedom of speech are "fighting words," "incitement to riot," and defamation. The fighting words doctrine is the only one that could plausibly apply and it's extremely narrow.

Even in Canada, I think (but am not positive) that something can be considered hate speech only if it is inciting hatred and is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. While Escobar was stupid and juvenile I don't think you can plausibly argue that he was going to cause anyone to physically attack gay people or start a riot.

In my understanding, that only applies to criminal offenses. Civil cases are generally a bit different and usually have a lot to do with platform and specificity, I think. While Escobar certainly meets the platform criteria, being on national TV and everything, I don't think what he wrote was necessarily something that it could be plausibly argued was extremely hurtful to anyone in particular. Now, if he'd wrote something intensely homophobic on Twitter, he could be in trouble. But again, I'm not 100% sure, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a journalism student, and this is kind of auxiliary to that.

That's kind of beside the point, though. Maybe it's just because I've spent so much time living in multiple countries, but it bothers me when people say "this is America" like that makes what they're arguing for some kind of universally indisputable truth. Like, okay, you believe that people have a right to near-absolute freedom of speech. Fine. But there's lots of places where that isn't considered to be a right, and they seem to be doing okay. In Canada (and other places), it's generally considered that people have a right to free basic healthcare. That doesn't necessarily mean that that is a universal right, just that it is considered to be one in Canada. Argue for what you believe in, not what other people say.

This might be getting dangerously close to politics. I don't think it is, but if anyone does, I'm sorry.