Official Offseason Thread

[clvclv]

Who in the *ell could the Red Sox and Padres still be talking about in a Myers swap???

[Super]

Who in the *ell could the Red Sox and Padres still be talking about in a Myers swap???

found that interesting. not really sure what the Sox would even do with him tho.

[UNCBlue012]

The Red Sox are apparently interested in Cal Quantrill and prospects Luis Campusano & Gabriel Arias.

[Super]

The Red Sox are apparently interested in Cal Quantrill and prospects Luis Campusano & Gabriel Arias.

take on money to steal some prospects, ok.

[BeanieAntics]

Huff is an idiot. Putting aside his political choices, he certainly has the right to say whatever he wants (within limits for hate speech and the like) under the First Amendment but that does not mean his statements don't have consequences. He's made some asinine (no cringe worthy) statements on twitter and now he's trying to pin the decision solely on his voting choices which is inaccurate.

Hate speech isn't a legal thing in America

[CyYoung31]

Hate speech isn't a legal thing in America

Say what, now?

[BeanieAntics]

Say what, now?

I said: "Hate speech isn't a legal thing in America"

[CyYoung31]

I said: "Hate speech isn't a legal thing in America"

You’re going to have to explain. Are you being literal? Figurative? Facetious?

[ramadon101]

You’re going to have to explain. Are you being literal? Figurative? Facetious?

I think he’s just saying the US has no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment (and the Supreme Court has affirmed that time and time again including recently with Matal v. Tam). That said one cannot make specific threats (not protected) or incite violence directly (not protected).

Regardless Huff has made sufficient damning statements for me to know he’s a dotard in the worst way possible.

[Snowman]

That could mean "hate speech isn't legal in the U.S.," which comparatively would be mostly be untrue.

Or it could mean "Hate speech isn't a legal matter in the U.S.," which comparatively would be true.

Edit: or, pretty much what Ramadan just said.

[BeanieAntics]

You’re going to have to explain. Are you being literal? Figurative? Facetious?

I'm being literal. There are no hate speech laws in the US and the Supreme Court has continuously ruled that such laws would be unconstitutional

[BeanieAntics]

I think he’s just saying the US has no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment (and the Supreme Court has affirmed that time and time again including recently with Matal v. Tam). That said one cannot make specific threats (not protected) or incite violence directly (not protected).

Regardless Huff has made sufficient damning statements for me to know he’s a dotard in the worst way possible.

Yes, this.

[bravesfanMatt]

Dotard. I like it. Never heard it but I like it.

[striker42]

I believe there are philosophical reasons for Freedom of Speech that go beyond strict legalistic clinging to the First Amendment. I believe people should be encouraged to speak their minds without fear of reprisal. I think silencing dissenting voices leads to not just stagnation, but also resentment among those silenced.

So I encourage people like Huff to speak their minds. I can think him an idiot and reject his views while not condoning negative actions take against him because of his speech.

[CyYoung31]

I'm being literal. There are no hate speech laws in the US and the Supreme Court has continuously ruled that such laws would be unconstitutional

I read that the other way, as in “hate speech is NOT legal.”

Ambiguous speech should be illegal.

[BeanieAntics]

I believe there are philosophical reasons for Freedom of Speech that go beyond strict legalistic clinging to the First Amendment. I believe people should be encouraged to speak their minds without fear of reprisal. I think silencing dissenting voices leads to not just stagnation, but also resentment among those silenced.

So I encourage people like Huff to speak their minds. I can think him an idiot and reject his views while not condoning negative actions take against him because of his speech.

Yeah I agree with this. I also think that policing this sort of thing (culturally) creates too broad of a standard, and that's always a bad thing when it comes to speech. I am happy to live in a country where our speech problems are cultural and not a matter of law, like they are in so many European countries nowadays.

The first amendment is my second favorite, next to the the 3rd. Taking my speech is one thing, but you can GTFOH if you try to quarter a soldier in my house.

[jpx7]

He’s not being “policed”, though, not even figuratively. He’s just not being invited to an event hosted by a former employer whose business might be materially, negatively impacted by association with him (or what he represents, through his own cultivation).

[Super]

"hey this guy is a moron and will hurt our brand. let's not invite him to the party"
"how DARE you police him and tell him what he can't do."
??????

[Super]

crazy that some here have never avoided inviting someone to an event they were hosting.

[nsacpi]

crazy that some here have never avoided inviting someone to an event they were hosting.

I always invite people before disinviting them...not to do so seems bad form