Canucks News and Notes

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4182
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Rumsfeld » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:04 pm

Reefer2 wrote:
Rumsfeld wrote: Do you really not understand what freedom of speech is?

When Cornuck edits one of my sweet burns, is he denying me my constitutional right to"free speech"? :lol:

Do you really think any company is going to be cool with any behaviour while you're wearing their uniform and representing their brand? Should McDonald's protect Skyo's "free speech" if he calls Reefer a fat dork at the cash register, regardless of how accurate said statement may (or may not) be?
What the hey......

1) I aint fat (my mom said so)
2) I am not a dork, I call other people that
3) if someone did call me that at Big M I am ok with that since I will get my meal for free

See always make lemonade when it rains out.
Yeah it's all theoretical bro.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 21133
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Strangelove » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:10 pm

After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8098
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Cornuck » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:31 pm

Strangelove wrote:After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
Leave? :eh:
2019-20 - Playoff Bound

User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4182
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Rumsfeld » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:51 pm

Cornuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
Leave? :eh:
No I think he wants to give us baths...
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8098
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Cornuck » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:11 pm

Rumsfeld wrote:
Cornuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
Leave? :eh:
No I think he wants to give us baths...
I'd rather he just left...
2019-20 - Playoff Bound

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 21133
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Strangelove » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:26 pm

Rumsfeld wrote:
Cornuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
Leave? :eh:
No I think he wants to give us baths...
Psychometrics guys, psychometrics.

Thanks for the feedback...

Yeah, some are dealing with abandonment issues, others with sexual dysfunction.

Most telling of all though is The Toucan Kid: No response. :(

Sigh, it's even worse than I thought with this one...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 4447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Per » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:18 am

Rumsfeld wrote:Yeah, it's a sad world when a Wal-mart greeter can't scream "whore" at every woman entering the store without fear of repercussion.

If someone can't discern between legal rights to speech and corporate rights to maintain standards for employees, this discussion is sad and pointless. As for making the individual conform to the many, that's what we call, um, civilization, and it's what every society, by necessity, has done to every citizen from the day they are born.

I think police officers should have the right to show up to work naked with swastikas tattooed on their foreheads because free speech gize.
:shock:

What has the world come to?!

I wake up, head over to canuckscorner, read a post by Rumsfeld, and find myself agreeing with him!
Sheesh! Maybe I had better go back to bed? :|
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 4447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Per » Sat Dec 19, 2015 8:32 am

griz wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Burrows trash talking or the NHL's right to police on ice behaviour have nothing to do with freedom of speech. The team's right, or employer's right to police "on duty" behaviour has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Burrow's trash talking is a freedom of expression. Whomever/whatever attempts to stop him from doing so is against freedom of expression.
You mean "whoever", but you are also wrong. Burrow has a right, freedom of expression, to say whatever he wants, no one is questioning that, but he must consider that it may bring consequences.

He can for instance be charged with hate speech, libel or defamation, if what he says qualifies as such. (There are also such things as incitement to crime or causing bodily harm to people by yelling "fire!" In a crowded theatre; these latter things are not directly related to what Burrows did, but are legal limitations to the concept of free speech.)

Furthermore, he is employed by the NHL, and whenever he is on the ice, in uniform, he is representing them, as well as the Canuck franchise. If his conduct goes against the expressed or implicit wishes of his employers, they have a right to discipline him. This has nothing to do with free speech. He can say whatever he want, but he must acknowledge the fact that if his bosses aren't happy with what he says, they can fire him, fine him or whatever seems fit punishment to the act he has committed, as long as it does not go against Canadian labour laws. This is about the right of the NHL and the Canuck franchise to protect their corporate brands. If you are employed, you must consider that when you are at work, you should follow the rules of your employer, unless they are illegal. And it is perfectly legal for a company to regulate how you treat people you interact with at work.

This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with regulating workplace behaviour.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 4447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Per » Sat Dec 19, 2015 8:35 am

Strangelove wrote:After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
You're going to give me an allowance? :D

Not really necessary, but thanks for the offer! 8-)
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

griz
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by griz » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:15 pm

Per wrote:You mean "whoever", but you are also wrong. Burrow has a right, freedom of expression, to say whatever he wants, no one is questioning that, but he must consider that it may bring consequences.
Thanks for the whoever correction. That's a bad habit that some native English speakers have.

Burrows has every right to express himself freely even if that comes with consequences. How am I wrong Per?

When something Burrows said years ago becomes front page news, this is drivel in my opinion and not news. It's making headlines and promoting a book at Burrow's expense. Perhaps it contains a political agenda or a social conditioning payload?
Per wrote:He can for instance be charged with hate speech, libel or defamation, if what he says qualifies as such. (There are also such things as incitement to crime or causing bodily harm to people by yelling "fire!" In a crowded theatre; these latter things are not directly related to what Burrows did, but are legal limitations to the concept of free speech.)
Yes, that's often used as an example. But as you said this was not the case. Burrows said something personal to a 'player' during a 'game' to upset the player and get him off his game. Trash talk is expected on the ice and it's motives are clear. It's not hate crime, it's competition.
Per wrote:Furthermore, he is employed by the NHL, and whenever he is on the ice, in uniform, he is representing them, as well as the Canuck franchise. If his conduct goes against the expressed or implicit wishes of his employers, they have a right to discipline him. This has nothing to do with free speech.
I never meant to imply that his employer couldn't respond. This shouldn't be front page news. This also damages the league's image. It's the way it's being used that is an attack on freedom of expression. Much like the J Too Too thing. Just because someone said a boo-boo (years ago no less) doesn't mean we all need to pay the price of reduced expressive liberty.
Per wrote:This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with regulating workplace behaviour.
I agree that an employer can protect itself and respond. However, I'm looking beyond the workplace issues. I'm wondering why this was made into a big story and shown to the public at all? Imagine if everyone was called on everything they ever said when they were young? Would you want to live in that kind of a world? I myself preferred the "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me" world.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 4447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Per » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:21 pm

Sure, it's shitty to bring something up years later. I totally agree with that.
And it's hard to understand the media interest. Trash talk is common.

But it still has nothing to do with free speech.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4182
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Rumsfeld » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:44 pm

griz wrote:
Per wrote:You mean "whoever", but you are also wrong. Burrow has a right, freedom of expression, to say whatever he wants, no one is questioning that, but he must consider that it may bring consequences.
Thanks for the whoever correction. That's a bad habit that some native English speakers have.

Burrows has every right to express himself freely even if that comes with consequences. How am I wrong Per?

When something Burrows said years ago becomes front page news, this is drivel in my opinion and not news. It's making headlines and promoting a book at Burrow's expense. Perhaps it contains a political agenda or a social conditioning payload?
Per wrote:He can for instance be charged with hate speech, libel or defamation, if what he says qualifies as such. (There are also such things as incitement to crime or causing bodily harm to people by yelling "fire!" In a crowded theatre; these latter things are not directly related to what Burrows did, but are legal limitations to the concept of free speech.)
Yes, that's often used as an example. But as you said this was not the case. Burrows said something personal to a 'player' during a 'game' to upset the player and get him off his game. Trash talk is expected on the ice and it's motives are clear. It's not hate crime, it's competition.
Per wrote:Furthermore, he is employed by the NHL, and whenever he is on the ice, in uniform, he is representing them, as well as the Canuck franchise. If his conduct goes against the expressed or implicit wishes of his employers, they have a right to discipline him. This has nothing to do with free speech.
I never meant to imply that his employer couldn't respond. This shouldn't be front page news. This also damages the league's image. It's the way it's being used that is an attack on freedom of expression. Much like the J Too Too thing. Just because someone said a boo-boo (years ago no less) doesn't mean we all need to pay the price of reduced expressive liberty.
Per wrote:This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with regulating workplace behaviour.
I agree that an employer can protect itself and respond. However, I'm looking beyond the workplace issues. I'm wondering why this was made into a big story and shown to the public at all? Imagine if everyone was called on everything they ever said when they were young? Would you want to live in that kind of a world? I myself preferred the "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me" world.
Yeah none of this is what you originally said at all. You've completely changed your argument like three times now and still express a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is and what it protects.

Sometimes it's ok to just admit you were wrong and throw in he towel, you know. It can be quite therapeutic.

Strangelove and Topper do it all the time.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by the toucan kid » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:45 pm

Cornuck wrote:Benning and Linden see us 3 points from 2nd place in our division. ;)
I actually don't think they do.
Per wrote:Sure, it's shitty to bring something up years later.
Why? Burrows is in the wrong. And you say years as though it was 25 years ago or something.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 21133
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Strangelove » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:50 pm

Per wrote:
Strangelove wrote:After reading the posts in this thread over the past two days...

I want to do to some of you what your dads did to you.
You're going to give me an allowance? :D

Not really necessary, but thanks for the offer! 8-)
... and some have Sugar Daddy Syndrome.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 21133
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Post by Strangelove » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:05 pm

the toucan kid wrote:
Cornuck wrote:Benning and Linden see us 3 points from 2nd place in our division. ;)
I actually don't think they do.
What does this mean?
the toucan kid wrote:
Per wrote:Sure, it's shitty to bring something up years later.
Why? Burrows is in the wrong. And you say years as though it was 25 years ago or something.
It was originally said 10 years ago by Burrows (in the minors).

And then repeated 8 years ago.

If we brought up every chirp that crossed the line over the past decade we'd run out of bandwidth.

O’Sullivan whined, Burrows apologized, what more do you want? :hmmm:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Locked