Race and the Red Sox
- Thread starter doctorogres
- Start date
At the risk of offending those on the air, the ratings book alone verifies that they are in the small minority, lol.
FWIW: your point directly contradicts what others have said in that this event is not impacting the view of Boston on the national stage.
Damn... I will stick by my attempt to lighten the mood at their expense. I haven't listened to them regularly in years.
It's a private establishment and i'm not sure when hate speech crosses the line into hate crime. The fact the police are involved at all is a deterrent, even if it's just for show.
And I hope that the number and it's use will be encouraged more in signage around the park and on video displays.
I haven't seen a ticket this year - does anyone know if there is anything on the ticket itself that provides the number for security staff? That would ensure that everyone would have access to it under any circumstances (would be trivial to include it on e-tickets and the like as well).
It's not just Boston and it's not just sports. Have you ever watched Fox News or read Breitbart, the unofficial official website of the Trump administration?
Not trying to inject politics into sports, but we're way past that in this thread topic already. And I'm not defending Boston (and certainly not racist Red Sox fans,) but anyone who thinks that this is a Boston-specific problem needs to get out more.
JTB I disagree totally with your premise. Do you live in Boston? I do not equate the WEEI moron with any practical human with a brain. In my mind, they are a very small minority of Mass state residents. Where do you get your claims of a vast over whelming majority of fans that supported the racist viewpoint. How bout some evidence to back up your claims pal? The Governor, Major and most media types obviously backed Jones. Stop with your unbacked claims and let"s see some evidence. I would say that the vast majority of Mass residents and Sox fans do not support racism but I guess you think Massachusetts in 2017 is just like the South in 1861.
I'll answer your question when you show me where I "claimed" this.
Or this:
I was crystal clear right out of the gate. Your post is actually a nice example of how right it is.
Poor, poor Boston. I'm probably wrong, though. I'm sure all you guys will be lining up to inject nuance into "[FILL IN THE BLANK] fans are [FILL IN THE BLANK]" next time it comes up 'round these parts.
Last edited:
No one is saying that the average MA resident is a full fledged Klan member. But the above sort of represents a couple problems. Before I go any further, I'm not attacking you, just giving you a different perspective.
There is absolutely a weird thing going on with MA residents when it comes to race relations. And the above quote sort of encapsulates it. No, MA isn't 1861 Mississippi. It is probably better in many ways than 2017 Mississippi. But for some reason (demographics are probably a large part of it) whenever racial issues arise, there seems to be a desire to act as if the enlightened, liberal Commonwealth is beyond reproach. We dismiss, or at least downplay, the various accounts of people like Bill Russell, and claim that those issues disappeared when Yawkey died, or Southie was gentrified. This weird desire to not own what is a very real issue for people that don't quite see things the same way you do are kind of summed up by your final sentence. Sure, we're not as bad as the 1861 South. Who is?
I've harped on WEEI in this thread and in another one. I genuinely don't think people realize how bad a vocal and large enough segment sounds on this issue. And that's not you, but using the 1861 South as measuring stick is exactly what they did on WEEI.
I don't want to shock anyone, but Schilling is on record calling Jones a liar.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/curt-schilling-doubles-orioles-adam-jones-lying-article-1.3136600?utm_content=bufferc2d49&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDNSports+Twitter
Pedro has a charity event this weekend at Fenway and Schilling was listed as one of the guests. I sent the organizers the link to the story and asked if his invitation could be reconsidered.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/curt-schilling-doubles-orioles-adam-jones-lying-article-1.3136600?utm_content=bufferc2d49&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDNSports+Twitter
Pedro has a charity event this weekend at Fenway and Schilling was listed as one of the guests. I sent the organizers the link to the story and asked if his invitation could be reconsidered.
My only argument here is why you think it's so weird. It's basic tribalism -- people on your side are never as bad as other people think, but people on the other side are always way worse. That's true here, true pretty much everywhere.
I agree with the definition of hate speech as "Racial slurs and epithets or other harsh language that has no purpose other than to injure and marginalize other people or groups."
The argument for not covering it with the First Amendment is similar to why we can ban other potentially injurious speech, such as personal threats or yelling "fire" in a theater.
If you want more detail than that, though, I'll probably have to refer you to people much smarter than me. They're also the source for my definition of hate speech. I got it from Delgado and & Stefancic's Critical Race Theory.
This is not theory or opinion, it's a settled area of law. Hate speech short of an actual threat is protected by the 1st Amendment.
This argument says if we as Bostonians, Red Sox fans, or any other grouping don't drop to our knees and begin self-flagellation when the word race is mentioned that we are deniers at best or simply just racist. There is no room for anything but acceptance that we as a group are guilty - no matter what. Someone says there are 3 disgusting racists in our midst we are guilty. Someone says 10 percent in our midst - we are guilty. Someone says a large minority are racist - we are guilty. Someone says all you guys are merely hiding it - whelp you are guilty. At no point are we allowed to protest, we are just guilty.
Where is the room for discussion? Where is the room for listening? This thread has explored some decent ideas for improving things at the park. Some practical, some not. I've seen nothing from you (not a personal attack) or any outsiders that presents a meaningful improvement for the larger situation of race in our society - except to say things like "boo-hoo" about your city's reputation - you deserve it and as long as you don't throw yourself to the floor and beg for mercy in the court of public opinion, it's proof you really are racist. The hell you say?
People want to offer solutions or engage in meaningful conversations? Speak up. I and many others who believe in the people of Boston (of every ethnicity) want to make our city better. But in the mean time this is like one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. Or the old witch test. "Drown her, if she dies she's innocent!". "Find the racists! If they don't admit it to being racist, brand them racists! Confess, own it - you vile disgusting racists!"
It's nice the million dollar athletes won't be the target of racism in Fenway any further (or any of the other athletic venues) - because sports and cameras and media. This is certainly a necessary improvement. Meanwhile, all over the country (and in Boston too!) blacks and whites and asians and hispanics will still experience racism. And nothing substantial will have changed - but you and many others will feel better because Boston has admitted to being racist. GJGE.
---
As an aside,even funnier is that you yourself are naming enlightened liberals as denying racism and therefore proof it it still a problem here, others are blaming mouth breathing Trump supporters for the increase of racism. Is there any group who isn't responsible for this situation? Which group are you part of? Because that group is racist! And if you deny it - you're racist :/
---
Edit: Sorry for the rant. But this topic is killing me. I know so many proud Bostonians of every ethnicity who do small, medium, and large things to improve the quality of life here in the city every day. From teachers who have turned down larger salaries to teach in city schools, to police who have stayed to work in the city, to social workers, to ESL teachers, to medical professions who are here in the city when they could make more elsewhere, to volunteers who clean public spaces. All trying to make a difference however small any way they can. And it sucks to hear people label those good people and the city they call home (ugly warts and all) this way.
Last edited:
I saw someone else posted this upthread... but here it is again.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/curt-schilling-believes-adam-jones-lying-racial-taunts-221447957.html
That's right. Curt Schilling thinks Adam Jones is making it up (and clearly infers that all minority grievances are "made up for attention").
Least favorite Red Sox player of all time just hit a new low in my book. Fuck Schilling. This guyis a piece of fucking shit.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/curt-schilling-believes-adam-jones-lying-racial-taunts-221447957.html
That's right. Curt Schilling thinks Adam Jones is making it up (and clearly infers that all minority grievances are "made up for attention").
Least favorite Red Sox player of all time just hit a new low in my book. Fuck Schilling. This guyis a piece of fucking shit.
Just posted this too. Please post a link to this.... I can't stand Curt Schilling and I would gladly remove the '04 and '07 trophies to have that shit stain of a human being removed from the history of the Red Sox. Pedro should stand up to this shit.
I assume you know this, but "critical race theory" is far removed from the mainstream. I don't know anything about Delgado and Stefancic specifically, but anyone who embraces the CRT label isn't likely to be someone you should cite to persuade people who don't already agree with you.
As others have said, it's settled law that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Nobody is labeling teachers and medical professionals as racist.
There has been no city in the country that has been more in the limelight than Boston over the past 10-15 years. Through sports, Hollywood, tragedy, etc..., Boston is omnipresent. That's not to say it's undeserved, or unearned. Everyone knows that Boston is a historic city with lots of great things about it. I've never known anyone who visits Boston and doesn't come back saying nice things. But boy, is the rest of the country sick of hearing about how great Boston is. That's the price you pay for all the positive attention.
So when something legitimately bad happens in Boston, and Boston experiences the downside of that out-sized exposure, and there's a vocal minority reacting like "Hey, this could have happened anywhere! Leave us alone!" and, worse, "Hey, that would never happen in BOSTON!" of course other people are going to piss on Boston for it, because those reactions (even if not shared by everyone) confirm the suspicions of a lot of people that maybe people from Boston think they are better than us. Like Bostonians believe their own press. Like maybe all the New York fans who tell us all the time "Dude, Bro, Boston fans are the WORST!" have a point.
Because a racist taunt could happen in any city, and probably does from time to time. That much is absolutely true. Even in Boston. There's nothing super-special about people who live in Boston, but sometimes it seems like the people who live there think there really might be. And that's mostly due to the media coverage, obviously. But that's the downside of being the in the spotlight for a decade: you get overly praised, and you get overly criticized. And when people welcome the former and then kick and scream at the first sign of the latter, it wreaks of a lack of self-awareness.
Last edited:
My experience is that some people confuse first amendment free speech rights with the idea that you should be able to say anything (with the exception of threats) and have there be no consequences. But because the constitution allows free speech doesn't mean the private sector can't impose consequences like losing your on-air job or being banned from Fenway. (see Don Imus in regards to the Rutgers women basketball team ... Imus' show being cancelled really pissed off a friend of mine who kept citing free speech and wouldn't listen to anybody trying to explain the difference.)
I tell my son this all the time. Free speech is not devoid of consequences - it is devoid of legal consequences/jail time.
Individually, no. But they are being smeared with the same brush. Their good works and sacrifices in the name of community are being covered with the detritus of the situation in the rush to brand the whole with these (and any labels).
Your response is to me a reasonable take on what I've said, and I get your point. It's probably more balanced than my post deserved. I guess in the end I just see the people affected in this conversation (the racism receivers and those dirtied by it in collateral damage) as more than a collection of labels. I want them all to be able to be judged on their actions, and not some label that paints them as something they are not. I don't want people of color judged by the label of their skin, and I don't want those proud of their home towns judged by the label of their group. Too much to ask I guess.
Thank you again for your reasoned response.
They're members of a community and stakeholders in it. If we don't like our city's reputation, it's up to us to work to change it. You may think it's unfair, but we're all responsible for each other, even the worst among us.
If that brush is "Hey, there are some racist people in Boston." then, yes they are. Rightfully so. Because there are! There are racist people everywhere! I live in Minneapolis; there are racists here! When people say "Hey, there are some racist fucks in/around the Twin Cities!" people go "Yup. Sucks. Fuck those assholes." and people move on and try to fix it where we can. We don't go "Well, hey, it's not fair to label my neighborhood as racist! We have lots of nice people! I really hate how you're implying that my wife is a racist! Yes, there were American Indians unjustly executed here in the Civil War but that was a long time ago!" If someone reacted that way, they'd get laughed out of the room.
But what's going on now with Boston is a feedback cycle where a vocal minority said "No way! Not here!", and that got taken up by the media, and now folks like you (no offense, and you're not alone, look at any sports message board anywhere where this issue is raised) are defensively making what amounts to a simple, really indisputable statement of fact ("Hey, there are some racist people in Boston!") some huge referendum on literally the entire city's attitude toward's race ("It sucks that nurses are now being called racist!" "The busing crisis was a long time ago!"). It's a defensive reaction that makes it seem like many folks in Boston are more worried about Boston's carefully cultivated reputation than you are about dealing with a very real problem. That's what is being projected, whether you mean it to be or not. Nobody gives a shit about your reputation taking a hit if that reputation wasn't deserved in the first place. Boston's a city, not a postcard. It has problems. They all do.
Phenweigh makes an important, Constitutional Law 101 point: The First Amendment protects you from governmental conduct. The Red Sox are not the government.
Where things get dicey is in how the private business (Red Sox) tries to enforce it's right to kick you off the premises. Do they use the city's police force? The police ARE the government. The team can request that a No Trespassing order be issued and served, and used to remove the fan, and if the fan refuses, then violation of the trespass order can be used as justification for forcibly removing (and later prosecuting) the fan. Prosecutions based on the content of the fan's speech, however, can run afoul of the First Amendment. (On the other hand, laughing at Jeff Sessions is apparently illegal, so who knows where the First Amendment is heading these days...) Also, separate from the First Amendment question are possible breach of contract and related issues, which depend on what's on the ticket and incorporated into the ticket purchase (codes of conduct, etc.).
Where things get dicey is in how the private business (Red Sox) tries to enforce it's right to kick you off the premises. Do they use the city's police force? The police ARE the government. The team can request that a No Trespassing order be issued and served, and used to remove the fan, and if the fan refuses, then violation of the trespass order can be used as justification for forcibly removing (and later prosecuting) the fan. Prosecutions based on the content of the fan's speech, however, can run afoul of the First Amendment. (On the other hand, laughing at Jeff Sessions is apparently illegal, so who knows where the First Amendment is heading these days...) Also, separate from the First Amendment question are possible breach of contract and related issues, which depend on what's on the ticket and incorporated into the ticket purchase (codes of conduct, etc.).
There is some nuance here, if anyone cares. You actually can be punished for hate speech, just not directly.
Imagine a statute that makes arson a 10-year felony but racially-motivated arson a 20-year felony. You have a website that expresses your racist views toward a race that was affected by the crime. The evidence can be used to show both that you committed the crime and, more importantly, that you deserve the higher penalty. Its admission is subject to rules of evidence like any other evidence but there is no first amendment problem to having the evidence admitted or used this way. This is true even if it's the only evidence offered to get to the 20-year felony. In other words, you can be punished because of your speech (in a but for way) and even solely because of your speech (in the sense that if you had not made the speech you would have received 10 fewer years since there would be no other evidence). So, it's probably slightly overbroad to say hate speech is protected by the first amendment in the sense that there is not absolute immunity from all government compulsion or punishment for that speech.
Edit: So, to make it less abstract, if the guy who had used the slur on Tuesday had then punched the child (and if Mass has applicable hate crimes legislation) he would likely be subject to a more severe punishment for having made the slur than he would have been if he'd just walked up and punched the child.
You two are talking past each other. The statement he's objecting to is not "There are racist people in Boston" - it's "Boston is a racist city".
These are fundamentally different statements, and continuing to argue against the straw-man that people are suggesting that "There are racist people in Boston" is a problem statement isn't helping anything. Everybody knows there are racist assholes here, and "Yup, Sucks, fuck those assholes" is pretty much exactly the response.
Actually I've never said anything remotely close to "that happened a long time ago, so it's ok". All I've said is that current scum guilty of racism at Fenway are outliers probably in proportion to the density of other undesirable behaviors in any group. Not to excuse any of the behaviors/attitudes, but to take a larger perspective of the situation. Not to deny the existence of racism here or anywhere else. Not to derail any conversation. Not every societal situation calls for the same solution. When I call 911 I hope they ask what the problem is before they dispatch fire, emt AND police.
A bit of looking at the problem dimensions differentiates between instituting a ban for offenders to taking the draconian step of saying a large enough proportion were at fault so we are closing Fenway to fans for 3 days to emphasize this behavior is unacceptable. But those trying to frame this conversation are limiting all examination of the situation to simply accepting the guilt with no other assessment. I have to say if I thought 3 rows of scum were all chanting racist garbage I'd be in favor of playing a series with no fans and no tv coverage to send a message. But asking "do we know how many? " isn't allowed - it makes one a denier. I can guarantee the team and the city need to know the answer to the question.
If that is considered defensive then I'll own that and wear that label - because I don't feel being introspective about the degree of a problem is necessarily bad. If that is misconstrued by others as racist or enabling racism that is on them.
Last edited:
I just wanted to correct the statement that was made above ("hate speech is not free speech"). Everything past that is hypothetical, since no one was punched or threatened, and Fenway is a private facility and the Red Sox organization may restrict speech there far beyond what the 1st Amendment would permit the a government actor to do.
I think all the negative attention is somewhat Bostonians own fault. I love the city and hope to live here my whole life.
But it's sort of a play on the whole vegetarian joke...
How do you know someone is from Boston? (Tourist or ex-Bostonian)
Look at their hat...and jacket...and shirt.
Boston is/was home to the biggest "big-uppers" of its hometown that I have ever seen. Bostonians WANT you to know where they are from, each and every day. I bet that gets annoying to people and if they can "comment bad" on Boston when they get the chance, they will. And Bostonians are so proud of their city, they can't take any criticism, valid or not.
But it's sort of a play on the whole vegetarian joke...
How do you know someone is from Boston? (Tourist or ex-Bostonian)
Look at their hat...and jacket...and shirt.
Boston is/was home to the biggest "big-uppers" of its hometown that I have ever seen. Bostonians WANT you to know where they are from, each and every day. I bet that gets annoying to people and if they can "comment bad" on Boston when they get the chance, they will. And Bostonians are so proud of their city, they can't take any criticism, valid or not.
Do you really feel this way? I think the guy is a dope, but I'll be holding onto the memories of 2004 and 2007, thank you very much. But YMMV.
Free speech is a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I teach journalism -- including a unit on the First Amendment -- so being pedantic comes naturally. :^)
The First Amendment does not protect you from the legal consequences/jail time of your speech. It prevents the government from pre-censoring the press (now construed to include all media) and individual people's speech (now construed to include a variety of expression.)
For example, although the federal government can't legally prevent the New York Times from publishing secret government information, it can charge the New York Times, its reporters and editors, with a crime after the information has been published. If they're found guilty of violating the law, they'll go to prison and/or pay fines.
And although the government can't prevent you from from calling Joe Blow a dirty, rotten, so-and-so who trips blind people, strangles puppies and urinates in public pools, Mr. Blow can sue you for slander or libel after you've said or written it. And if Mr. Blow's lawyer can convince a jury that you have defamed him, you'll be ordered by the government to pay Mr. Blow some money.
There are any number of ways your "free speech" can lead to lead to legal consequences, including prison time.
I don't think that's right at all. I'm pretty sure the government could enjoin publication of state secrets. Plus, according to your theory, the government can't legally prevent people from doing murder, it can only charge them with crimes after the fact.
It sounds like this topic is reaching you, which is good, but there's one disconnect that is occurring between a couple of the different groups of posters.
Boston has a wide reputation (I'm not going to get in a debate of whether it's well-deserved or not, that really isn't the point) of being racist. That reputation has coalesced particularly over the last decades not because of people using the "N word" in public settings but because groups of people, when talking amongst themselves, have found that they have experienced common experiences, such as being followed in department stores, being stopped by the police, having nasty comments made to them if on an interracial date, not having cabs stop for them, etc. etc. etc. I'm not saying that these things couldn't happen just because mean people are doing mean things to other people, but when a group of people find that everyone in their group has these common experiences, they start to jump to conclusions. Rightly or wrongly.
And as I said before, reputations are hard to drop.
I haven't lived in Boston in years so maybe people are correct that things have changed drastically. But Boston's reputation will only change when people stop sharing these types of stories and people start saying, "Oh I love Boston and Boston has been nothing but welcoming to me."
The incident with Adam Jones doesn't help that. For a lot of us, this isn't a one-off incident; it's just a re-affirmation of things that have occurred in the past. And that's why it doesn't help to say, "Well it couldn't have happened in any city."
And frankly, the problem in Boston is that I would guess a lot of people couldn't care less who gets followed in department stores; who gets stopped for no reason at all; or whatever other inconvenience happens to people just because of the color of their skin.
I hope this all makes sense to you.
I accept both statements in the helpful manner intended and just say I've tried to communicate to him that there are always potential consequences to speech, and just because you can does not mean one should.
To bring it back to the thread I've also taught him hate in any form shouldn't be part of his life (not limited to race). Somehow we ended up on opposing sides of many political lines... Can't figure that one out... Lol
Don't want to sidetrack this thread further...
My argument is that hate speech is not the same thing as free speech, nor does it automatically qualify as free speech. As you and others point out, one situation where it does not automatically qualify as free speech is when it is done in a private facility.
Yes. It can. Or it can try to. But the legal standard set by the USSC in the Pentagon Papers case is very high. (New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971.) Of course, the Supreme Court could lower the standard.
Even in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government asked for and received an injunction to prevent publication -- later overturned by the USSC -- there's little the government could have done to actually stop the NYT from publishing. The NYT chose to go to appeal the injunction instead of publishing. Now, with the internet, it'd be impossible for the government to prevent publication. See: Wikileaks.
My "theory" about pre-publication censorship has absolutely nothing at all to do with murder. Or any other crime.
In college I was walking arm in arm near the Hynes Convention center with a good friend - the most beautiful black woman I've ever met in person. A car stopped along side us and 4 black men proceeded to give us an earful of racist filth complete with interracial components, etc. She gave them a colorful response in return making clear their ignorance and disgusting attitudes. It was amusing to see their jaws drop and backpedal before racing away in thir car. I learned a few words that day and still find her perspective on race and relationships to be accurate many years later.
I get what you are saying. I've been on the receiving end (edit: of an extremely small amount of racism). I can't offer any perspective on the volume or frequency except the conversations over my lifetime have included fewer and fewer of these examples. I'm also not stupid enough to think my exposure is representative of anyone elses.
I think many people in my exposure have said Boston has welcomed them... but until it's uniformly felt by all who live here as well as those visiting there is more to be done - but I don't see many denying that truth here.
Don't take this the wrong way, but: your experience isn't comparable to a black person being the target of racist comments/actions. And the fact that you think it is, is part of the problem.
I'm also not sure why your friend's physical appearance, aside from her being black, is even relevant to the story.
Oversimplifying a direct response to someone else in order to point a finger is a bit on the low end. But if you are now saying white people don't count in any discussion on racism because we don't know what it's like to be black then welcome to the other side of the street - by the terms of this thread you would now appear to be a denier of racism. Remember we aren't allowed to ask how much - only to accept all racism on its face. Or isn't that the message being communicated?
I never said she was physically beautiful. That was your jump because you're judging me. She was a engineering double major, a campus leader, a thoughtful daughter, gifted piano player, kicked my ass in chess, diplomatic in most every situation, extraordinary kindness and compassion to others, and the ability to put someone in their place when they needed it. Simply the most beautiful black person I've ever met in my life. I'm sorry if you are seeing things that aren't there.
[
His point still stands, though—what does any of this have to do with your anecdote?
The implication is that her being beautiful made her somehow worthy of landing a white dude, which is what set off the reverse racism, apparently?