Oregon Players to be ‘Disciplined Internally’ for ‘No Means No’ Chant - Thought Police

Oregon football players will be disciplined for chanting "no means no" after their victory of Florida St. The chant was in reference to the rape allegations against Florida St. quarterback Jameis Winston. The Oregon players will be punished by the school.

In the other universe, students and athletes across the country were fully supported for wearing their "Hands up, don't shoot" shirts, and walking onto the fields with their hands raised.

In fact, one college president committed the unspeakable act of emailing the student body stating the "all lives matter" and she was quickly reprimanded, and apologized, and replaced her sentiment with the thought police approved hashtag, "blacklivesmatter."

The difference?

Thoughts demonizing white males are approved.

When thoughts that cause anybody other than white males to even be offended are thought crimes, and you will be ridiculed and punished by the thought police.

-White guys accused of raping black girl? Front page every day. (See Duke lacross, Tawanna Brawley, etc.)
-White cop shoots black gun pointing a gun at him? Front page race story.
-Make political statement at sporting event against white guys? Front page, given full support.

-Black star QB accused but not charged with rape? Punish those who think justice wasn't served.
-Black on black murders? Accuse those pointing this out as racists.
-Black cops kill a unarmed white teens? Don't report it. Accuse those who do of being racists.

If you say anything that is even PERCEIVED as being possibly offensive to anyone except white men, be prepared to be attacked, punished, censored, accused of being racist, and possibly charged with a crime (E.g., don't like Obama's policies? You must be a racist.)

Just follow the Oregon story. There will be NOBODY in the media calling for support of their freedom of speech because they were ridiculing a black man accused of rape. That's simply not approved.

blacksportsonline.com...

a reply to: Jamie1

Seriously?
But this isn't race baiting right...

They are being punished cause that has no place in the game and is not how you act after you beat someone.
Mountain out if a ant hill for sure.

And not sure what rock you lived under during the duke case but it was a huge deal and many were not happy with outcome.
Would love sources for the rest of your claims, especially the one about a white male getting shot and it not getting reported.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You say it has no place in "the game" but seriously...what about all the athletes running around in "I can't breathe" shirts? What about the President praising them for doing it? Players wearing "hands up don't shoot" shirts?

I'm not buying into the race baiting angle, or the thought police angle, but I do see the disparity here. Everybody was fawning over athletes from the pro level down for wearing the above mentioned shirts, but suddenly this chant is now an issue?

a reply to: Jamie1

such a double standard. FSU went out of their way to exonerate their star QB. This guy is pos rapist.

a reply to: Shamrock6

This isn't any type of protest, it is an attack on a player and his character after a game they just beat him in.

Oh and how many college players wore those shirts?
Any one got some pics? Or was it all pros that did it...

And how in gods name is this not race baiting if racism is being implied!?!?
ETA: So read what you said wrong sham, or at least I hope I read that you are not buying into the race part of this.

Double ETA: And TBH Winston deserves it, he is a cry baby that thinks he can do what ever he wants.
But to claim a racist angle cause the ducks want their players to show sportsmanship....come on now...

a reply to: Sremmos80

An entire team of high school students just won a lawsuit to wear "I can't breathe" shirts to a basketball tournament. Please don't go down the "pics or it didn't happen" road.

So it's a constitutional right to wear a "hands up don't shoot" shirt to a pre-game warm up but it's not a constitutional right to chant "no means no" after winning a game? What does winning the game have to do with anything?

The shirts were created to protest a situation in which a grand jury declined to indict. The chant was created after a university cleared their star player of rape allegations. I think, on a personal level, FSU covered things up and drug things out so as to avoid any possible loss of playing time. There's credible reports that the university and university police hampered the investigation.

So in the end, I don't see how you can call one a constitutional right of free speech but not the other. Both the chant and the shirts were directed at people who were cleared of wrong doing under extraordinary circumstances. So why is it okay to protest one incident but not another, and use the guise of free speech as the protection?

Wow, this is all going to plan according to the playbook!

Y'all keep arguing about this and the country goes in the crapper (along with all the other things according to the playbook)!

All going to plan...

I love it!

Not sure about the rest of the country, but the actions of the footballers is a clear violation of the schools "Good Sportsmanship" policies as outlined in their student handbook. Linked for your considerations.

committees.uoregon.edu...

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fine, they have the right to say it, but they can still be punished for it.

And the reason they are being punished for it is cause that is not how the university wants them to act after they win a game.
They don't pride them self's in that type of action, if the players don't like it then drop out.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I don't disagree with you at all that the university has the right to discipline them for it. The university has a code of conduct (I assume anyway) and code of sportsmanship and so on. My only disagreement was that one form is protected speech while the other is not.

Off-topic: we keep agreeing on things lately. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm starting to develop a complex....

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ya I was wrong when I said one was a a right and the other was not, I edited that part out.
Got a little ahead of my self there.

Off-topic: we keep agreeing on things lately. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm starting to develop a complex....

Not sure how to take that but I do agree

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

Seriously?
But this isn't race baiting right...

They are being punished cause that has no place in the game and is not how you act after you beat someone.
Mountain out if a ant hill for sure.

And not sure what rock you lived under during the duke case but it was a huge deal and many were not happy with outcome.
Would love sources for the rest of your claims, especially the one about a white male getting shot and it not getting reported.

Race baiting? Thank you for providing a stellar example what I just pointed out in my OP.

I'm advocating for the rights of black college athletes to say "no means no" without being punished by their white coach.

Why don't you try some intellectual honesty instead of parroting the "thought police" party line.

So I guess you think it's ok for white coaches to discipline black college athletes for expressing themselves?

Or is it just certain opinions are approved? The others are thought crimes, right?

a reply to: Jamie1

There will be NOBODY in the media calling for support of their freedom of speech because they were ridiculing a black man accused of rape. That's simply not approved.

Just my opinion, but the protest is really against the University that lets the rape go by because the 'stars' and the money grants behind them are threatened. if they do allow any investigation (let alone protest calling attention to the problem) it might lead to opening that big can of worms.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

Seriously?
But this isn't race baiting right...

They are being punished cause that has no place in the game and is not how you act after you beat someone.
Mountain out if a ant hill for sure.

And not sure what rock you lived under during the duke case but it was a huge deal and many were not happy with outcome.
Would love sources for the rest of your claims, especially the one about a white male getting shot and it not getting reported.

Race baiting? Thank you for providing a stellar example what I just pointed out in my OP.

I'm advocating for the rights of black college athletes to say "no means no" without being punished by their white coach.

Why don't you try some intellectual honesty instead of parroting the "thought police" party line.

So I guess you think it's ok for white coaches to discipline black college athletes for expressing themselves?

Or is it just certain opinions are approved? The others are thought crimes, right?

If it was a black coach doing the disciplining, would that make it any different?

I believe the first amendment supersedes any punishment this business plans to exert on those people, regardless of what is said and who's ego it might damage. I'm not sure of what contracts has been signed by the supposed offenders. I'm guessing there's some code of ethics, but regardless the first amendment is an unalienable right that can't be denied. I hope one of them sues the establishment.

a reply to: Jamie1

Thoughts demonizing white males are approved.

So you are not accusing the media and other out lets of putting the white man down?

You can advocate for their free speech all you want but getting punished by their school is not against their rights and you it.

Lets be real, this wasn't about making a stand against sexual violence, it was about rubbing salt in the wounds of the guy you just beat.

originally posted by: qwerty12345
I believe the first amendment supersedes any punishment this business plans to exert on those people, regardless of what is said and who's ego it might damage.

I agree.

Which is why the police aren't involved and no one is going to court.

The First Amendment protects citizens from the GOVERNMENT, not each other. Your 1st Amendment Rights still come with social consequences.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jamie1

There will be NOBODY in the media calling for support of their freedom of speech because they were ridiculing a black man accused of rape. That's simply not approved.

Just my opinion, but the protest is really against the University that lets the rape go by because the 'stars' and the money grants behind them are threatened. if they do allow any investigation (let alone protest calling attention to the problem) it might lead to opening that big can of worms.

Or maybe the players chanting "no means no" with the tomahawk chop were making a statement about STOPPING Jameis Winston from scoring on the field and winning the game.

I would bet my life if they were chanting "I can't breathe" or "Hands up, don't shoot" and the white coach said he was going to punish them, the white coach would be fired before the next game.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Everybody was fawning over athletes from the pro level down for wearing the above mentioned shirts, but suddenly this chant is now an issue?

"No means no" seems a bit tasteless but inoffensive to anyone but the player. It's not like they were encouraging him for the rape, after all.

For that matter, I've seen some of the jocks get away with things just short of murder at the schools I've been to, it doesn't bother me a lot to see it dragged into the open. We had a wife-beater and a guy who ran over and killed two students while DUI on campus, and both were suddenly exonerated and put back on the field. It's AMAZING.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

Thoughts demonizing white males are approved.

So you are not accusing the media and other out lets of putting the white man down?

You can advocate for their free speech all you want but getting punished by their school is not against their rights and you it.

Lets be real, this wasn't about making a stand against sexual violence, it was about rubbing salt in the wounds of the guy you just beat.

Of course the school can do what they want. It's a private institution. If they want to punish college kids for saying "no means no" instead of saying "I can't breathe" that's their prerogative.

It's also an example of how thought crimes are now readily accepted. Look around. When certain thoughts are expressed, there are calls for those thoughts to be silenced, and the people expressing them to be punished and sometimes jailed.

Isn't this why we're kind of against places like N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and China? For not supporting basic human rights, and punishing those who dare to express thoughts contrary to what the regime approves?

Very slippery slope....