Bridge players simply don’t mess around - Free Speech trumps Corporate Sponsorship
Imagine a world without the Internet. It is a cold, isolated world where events never see the light of day unless someone wants you to see them. Where the crack of sound caused by trees falling in the middle of the woods is not heard…
Which begs the question, if a tree falls in the middle of the woods does it make a sound? Sure it does, and since some poor schmuck is out there with a laptop and wireless probably live blogging it, you can get the audio feed and a podcast as well.
This is a local story only because yours truly plays bridge most every weekend. For the record, last weekend, my partner and I kicked bridge butt so we are still relishing in that past glory (we have been on the receiving end as well). I was surprised when I came across this while surfing around at Americablog.
Outside of Internet posts? Any anyone heard about this?
Let’s be clear the tournament ended a month ago. The Picture was taken a month ago.
Anyway - Winners of an international Bridge competition in China (the American team is pictured below) held up a sign “We did not vote for Bush”. The picture below is part of an article from New York Times
Also - notice a similar photo on this site where the words of the protest sign are bleached out. I’m sure someone simply chalked it up to a”bad” photo.
Now before you go all “my country right or wrong” or the more apropos kool-aid mentality of Bush Ãœber Alles.
This is America - we represent free speech - even in China. Who blocks our site by the way. I mean, have a look at the stuff you can buy on the Web. Wonderfully articulate and humorous anti-Bush materials or vile, disgusting hate garbage from Ann Coulter (or vice versa depending on your point of view).
Now these Bridge players - champions all, are going to be professionally punished? Like the Dixie Chicks, and like Cassius Clay?
But what is this really all about? Corporate Sponsors - Check out this exchange (my emphasis).
“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the U.S. Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments.
“There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”
Not so, said Danny Kleinman, a professional bridge player, teacher and columnist.
“If the USBF wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition,” he said by e-mail.
Martel said the action by the team, which had won the Venice Cup, the women’s title, at the Shanghai event, could cost the federation corporate sponsors.
Read the last two sentences of the above exchange again. Quite powerful to say the least.
Well - Ms. Martel and all the rest of y’all - tough. Corporate sponsorship does not trump American values and ideals.
Related posts:
“Countdown” has covered this… and covered this well. They actually had two members of the team on the show last night. From the sounds of it, they did this in response to all the criticism they heard of Bush.
We have created quite a definition of free speech in this country. I learned this the hard way when I decided to challenge moderators at a Buffalo Sabres message board. They said I had “objectionable content” in my signature, so I removed it. But I did so by writing a nicely worded critique of their job performance. Nothing vulgar, threatening or false. I just posted my opinion.
They banned me.
I contacted the webmaster about this and he basically dared me to get a lawyer because, as he said, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to a private entity. They make the rules.
Okay… that’s fine, I said. But what country enables you to exist?
The same with the United States Bridge Federation. I have found that more and more, private entities are using this excuse, that really, they can control your speech because they are private, and that if you challenge them, they can basically delete your post(s), ban you, or tell you not to talk. There’s something wrong with this.
They use the excuse that government can’t suppress one’s right to free speech. This is true. But does that mean it’s okay for a private organization to engage in behavior that is downright fascist in nature? After all, if this is the case, private entities can simply shut you up (or shut you out) without your right to an opinion.
When I heard Martel use the private entity line, I thought immediately of what the Sabres message board did. They did this to other people as well, who complained about the fact that the moderators were overstepping their bounds. But they just got rid of all those who complained.
Nice, isn’t it?
So I guess our Constitution only means that if we’re in a public place or at a public meeting, we can speak out. But if we’re inside the walls of private America, we can be silenced.
If that doesn’t scare anyone… it should.
Although if a private entity receives government funding in some fashion, it no longer retains the right to discriminate or violate the constitution. So sometimes what folks do who are looking for a way to challenge limitations placed by private entitites is to follow the money. Unfortunately, with the current Supreme Court, the protection of the Constitution ain’t what it used to be.