Comments on: Crackdown on Athlete Twitter Use Points Up Frustration, May Violate 1st Amendment

By: John Glass

John Glass — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:11:39 +0000

I still don’t see how this is a limitation of the athletes’ speech. I assume they aren’t being expelled (which would certainly curtail their speech at a University), but just removed from the team. Their activity on the team is not a platform for their speech, so what are they losing in this case? If someone is a member of my (free, not-a-business) private club and they are continually engaging in behavior that they should have been aware is unacceptable, is it then the case that I can’t force them to leave the club because that would violate their First Amendment rights?

By: joel

joel — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:33:57 +0000

Interesting points. It seems that one consistent theme regarding the appropriateness of applying the First Amendment is the business nature of the activity. Although college football as an entity is highly commercial, its athletes are not professionals, and so their activities should be viewed within the context of their role as students.

UNC is a public school. There are numerous rulings that suggest the First Amendment remains in force inside the public university’s ivy-covered walls.

In Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973), a graduate student at the University was expelled for distributing on campus an “underground” newspaper that the university deemed “indecent.” The Court reversed a lower court ruling and ordered Papish reinstated, stating:

“We think Healy makes it clear that the mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency’” and “the First Amendment leaves no room for the operation of a dual standard in the academic community with respect to the content of speech.”

http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/studentpress.html

By: John Glass

John Glass — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:41:41 +0000

While I agree there is irony in addressing the Twittering of indiscretions, rather than the indiscretions themselves, freedom of expression doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences for what you say. I don’t really see the difference between representing a collegiate organization and a professional organization– neither one is a right. As long as there is no a priori censorship, the First Amendment has not been violated.

When Whole Foods CEO John Mackey penned a WSJ op-ed describing his opposition to health care reform, conservatives (including the Sentinel’s editor) cried about how his First Amendment Rights were being violated. What, because people aren’t going to shop at his store? You can say anything you want, but sometimes it is just a better idea to stay quiet.

It would be a different story if the students in question were blowing the whistle on others in their programs who were receiving unfair compensation. Then, the University would be wrong to punish them, because their conduct would have been exemplary instead of execrable.

By: Martin Chorich

Martin Chorich — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:29:05 +0000

Actually, I think there might be a gambling angle here as well. Particularly if player injuries or weaknesses come into the picture. But it does get into some interesting territory with regard to the shamateurism of college athletics. All agree that college football is a big business. Otherwise, why would there be a BCS, not to mention huge amounts paid for broadcast rights for it? Therefore it follows that this could fall under the more restrictive concepts of commercially contracted limits to free speech.