What did Barack Obama say at his secret sports speech in front of hundreds of people?

Barack Obama spoke in front of several hundred people yesterday at a sports conference.
We don’t know what he said.
That’s because Obama’s session at MIT’s Sloan Sports Analytics Conference was off the record — conference organizers prevented attendees from tweeting, livestreaming or reporting on any part of Obama’s appearance during or after the event.
The penalty for breaking the rules, per Sloan: You couldn’t come back to Sloan.

Awesome experience witnessing Barack Obama talking sports at Sloan today. In 10 minutes he detailed exactly what has to happen to fix these NCAA problems. NBA and NFL need minor league systems to draft high schoolers into. The guys who are good enough should get paid right away

What did Barack Obama say at his secret sports speech in front of hundreds of people?

OK so THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE USA actively using punishment to subvert the first amendment ?? Socialist agenda there much Obama? Why does a SPORTS conference need to be private? ACTIVELY PUNISHING FREE SPEECH right here in the USA right now from a former US president. Private event aside this is a MAJOR sports organization withe the likes of ESPN and other National organization representatives attending WHY? REALLY? This is a Sports Conference ! not a classified briefing on national security.

This is a direct attack on Free Speech in your face right now.

a reply to: TheJesuit

How is something not being recorded anything to do with free speech? Free speech is about speaking, not recording or broadcasting.

prevented attendees from tweeting, livestreaming or reporting on any part of Obama’s appearance during or **after **the event.
The penalty for breaking the rules, per Sloan: You couldn’t come back to Sloan.

Now read this again and let it sink in for a minute. Notice the stars for emphasis


a reply to: TerryDon79

a reply to: TheJesuit

Can you show me where, in the 1st, it shows you’re allowed to tweet, record or livestream?

No?

Thought not.

a reply to: TheJesuit

It probably went something like this...

Whatever he said must haven't been that important, otherwise it would be easy for anyone attending that session to create a fake social media account just to post about it.

Obama gives a speech, the media covers it and people are outraged about him still being in the news.

Obama gives a speech, the media doesn't cover it, and now it's an attack on free speech and subverting the 1st amendment.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

a reply to: TheJesuit


Last night, I watched a 1995 video of professor Obama describing to an audience how he "returned home" to Africa to visit his Grandmother, and came back to the U.S. with a different view of this country.

I get what you're saying, but he's no longer the President. The amendment protecting Freedom of Speech only applies to the government trying to silence the public.

He was there as a guest speaker, not as a representative of the administration, thus no infringement against the right to speech was made.

Besides, NDA's prevent people from speaking out about things they see or hear every day. Those are legal as well.

Your missing the whole point! Free Speech after the event was made a punishable offense, Any form of Public Media !

originally posted by: TheJesuit

Your missing the whole point! Free Speech after the event was made a punishable offense, Any form of Public Media !

So?

The people who attended would have agreed to that before hand. As the member above has said, NDAs are LEGAL and common practice for a lot of things.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TheJesuit

Can you show me where, in the 1st, it shows you’re allowed to tweet, record or livestream?

No?

Thought not.

Good lord, is that a serious question????! You realise there were no recording, live stream or twitter when the 1st amendment was written right????
Are you really suggesting that the 1st only applies to spoken word??? Or are you just trying to back peddle from your mistake?

a reply to: TheJesuit

Its a paid for speech. You do not know what freedom of speech is. You can snap photos ina museum either.

Re: what is reported...hes right. A minor league system would be better. College should be education not cash cow

a reply to: UKTruth

I didn’t make a mistake.

There’s no infringement on the 1st as this was done legally. Like most NDAs are.

OK if you can show me a copy of that NDA .. there is None that i can find....

www.sloansportsconference.com...

a reply to: TerryDon79

a reply to: TheJesuit

Barack Obama is not my most favorite person, but Sloan has every right to control those kinds of things on their private property. The First Amendment applies to government, not private businesses.

Now when Obama held speeches as President and used his SS/FBI security to prevent the public from recording him, that was a problem.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TheJesuit

Can you show me where, in the 1st, it shows you’re allowed to tweet, record or livestream?

No?

Thought not.

Good lord, is that a serious question????! You realise there were no recording, live stream or twitter when the 1st amendment was written right????
Are you really suggesting that the 1st only applies to spoken word??? Or are you just trying to back peddle from your mistake?

Did you even do a quick search about Freedom of Speech as applies to the OP's post?

"The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.[2] However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary with coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union"

What Terrydon said is correct. There is no law protecting you and saying you can tweet or livestream anything if it's been prohibited by the terms of attending. This was no public free for all. It was pay to get in and there were rules to follow. This is not a violation of any amendment, period, end of discussion. This has nothing to do with the type of media. A tweet is text, just like writing it down would be. Livestreaming is no different than standing outside the venue and shouting out what's going on inside as it's happening and having people listening tell others and so on and so forth. Slower method, but fairly close analogy.

The OP is outraged over something that occurs all the time because it's being done by Obama. Obama is a piece of work to be sure, but there was nothing illegal or in violation of rights either in the prohibition of reporting.

a reply to: TheJesuit

I don’t need to. Your OP states that there was something in play so people wouldn’t talk about it. If they didn’t agree to it, they could have just left.

a reply to: TheJesuit

From the sounds of the article, it didn't sound like Obama's speech was worth reporting on anyway.

I'm sure Obama knew that talking about "diversity" and being a "team player" would be ripe for all kinds of jokes and jabs at the former Hypocrite-in-Chief.

a reply to: TheJesuit

and mentalists get bent out of shape when Trumps words are slightly stretched or when he uses "air quotes"