In this social climate a 1 game suspension is appropriate. Clearly the announcer didn't mean anything offensive, but sayings like that in general shouldn't be said in a basketball setting.
This thought process (shared by tens of millions) scares me.
Being punished without fault because of mob outcry is exactly what our Constitution aims to prevent. The guy “only” loses his paycheck due to the media / social media lynch mob.
Well this isn't a government/constitutional issue. All of the outcries of protest stem from the same freedom of speech privileges that granted the announcer the right to say what he said. The NBA gets to choose how they handle situations that cause public outrage.
I don't see what's so scary about that. We've never lived in a world where you can say whatever you wanted with absolutely no pushback whatsoever.
I didn’t say it was a Constitutional issue. I said that our Constitution aims to prevent things like this, which it does. Due Process, habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, freedoms reserved to the people: they’re all about fundamental fairness. We have inherent rights to life, liberty and property.
The Framers were never okay with somebody who enjoyed Constitutional Protection being deprived of a paycheck without a fair process and notice. They just never figured America would turn into a society where money was taken out of somebody’s pockets despite no wrongdoing.
"No wrongdoing". I think this is the point where we disagree. I'm not saying that it was blatantly racist. I'm saying that the broadcaster said something that was both dumb and tone-deaf. I'm not sure if that qualifies for a suspension or not.
I find it interesting that some of us know of the framers' intentions. I can blatantly say that I have no idea what they were thinking about. I've read historical accounts of the Philadelphia Convention, but I won't use similar texts as gospel.
I hear this line of thinking often, especially regarding the 2nd Amendment. How can we emphatically say that we know what these people were thinking about? As time goes on, we are able to see that our written history has shown inconsistencies.
Read the writings of the Framers, the Federalist papers, the laws that were in place at the time, the leading political philosophers of the time.
And no, saying a common phrase that has no specific racist history behind it, without racist intent, is never wrong doing.
I didn't spend too much time finding the origin of the cotton-picking comment, but I did see this:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/118386-5-racist-english-phrases-with-a-seriously-awful-historyObviously not a scholarly report. The author mentions 5 statements as being offensive:
1) Sold down a river
2) No can do
3) Getting gyped
4) Off the reservation
5) Out of your cotton picking mind
I think it is our right to figure out what is/ isn't offensive. We can disagree with all of the statements as being offensive.
That being said, if someone calls it to our attention that maybe a particular statement is not very tactful, should we say ok and not use that term around them, or should we dig in and bring up the Constitution and other reasons why there's no negative intent, etc. etc. etc.
I would choose the former option.