“All men are created equal” says the Declaration of Independence. And except for that part in the U.S. constitution where slaves were considered 3/5 of a man, the founding fathers largely got it right.
(Yes, except for that er uh “minor” faux pas.)
Conversely, not all opinions are created equal. Some are more informed than others. Some are more valid/valuable than others and should be treated accordingly. It’s why children can not vote. It’s why the NTSB and the FAA have slightly more influence than Mo’Kelly when it comes to airline safety regulations. And most importantly it’s why career journeymen basketball players shouldn’t be anywhere near the arena (pun intended) of political/socio-economic commentary. The acceptance of opinions is not guaranteed equal protection under the law, despite the misguided complaints of some.
It’s with these precursors we should more closely examine the controversy surrounding the remarks for now former ESPN blogger Paul Shirley. Note, Mo’Kelly said the controversy surrounding the remarks, not the remarks. The remarks in and of themselves aren’t worthy of debate. Sometimes the boundaries of “obscene” and “indecent” extend beyond the borders of pornography. The remarks of Paul Shirley arguably meet the standard of both obscenity and indecency.
Shirley’s remarks can be found HERE
There will be no debate as to the merits of his remarks. Mo’Kelly has neither the time nor the inclination to do your homework and retrace the time-line of events ranging from the 1915-1934 American occupation of Haiti to the IMF loans of today and how they impacted all things in the time between the two. Pick up a history book, or use Google and get in the game (pun intended); but it won’t be Mo’Kelly’s job on this day.
Conversely, what could and should be discussed is whether ESPN stepped over the line in firing Shirley for those same remarks, irrespective of how ill-informed, illogical and insensitive they surely were. There are those invariably who have argued Shirley’s “freedom of speech” has been encroached upon and we are diminished as a society when we persecute those with opinions of lesser popularity. It’s a fair discussion to have, but anyone yelling “free speech” in defense of Paul Shirley has already missed the point and should re-examine the meaning of the first amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Freedom of speech is the inalienable right to avoid prosecution for one’s views, not persecution…a distinct difference. In addition, freedom of speech is a dialogue, not a monologue. Paul Shirley is allowed to express himself within the boundaries of law and ESPN is allowed to express its disapproval and fire him in response.
And yes, Mo’Kelly is ecstatic ESPN did the right thing in this instance.
We as Americans do not have an inalienable right to our own column, television show or radio program. We are only guaranteed the right to express our opinions without fear of arrest, not the medium or platform in which to express it.
Virtually all companies have a code of conduct policy for its employees, ESPN included. ESPN as a media entity undoubtedly has editorial guidelines and surely has an ombudsman. Color Mo’Kelly cynical, but Paul Shirley commenting on the supposed political ineptitude of Haiti and its citizens’ “need” for more stringent use of birth control likely fell outside of a “sports blogger’s” purview. To his credit, he was an equal opportunity offender, managing to disrespect the memory of both the Tsunami victims as well as the Haiti earthquake victims. His ignorance was world-renown is a number of ways you could say.
To be completely honest, it doesn’t bother Mo’Kelly that Shirley does not support any Haitian relief effort. That is his “right.” He has the “right” to voice his displeasure and he will not be whisked away to jail for it. His comments were consistent with most partially-educated career athletes; those who spent most of their lives on the field of play and not in a classroom or library. Paul Shirley, a person who likely has never contributed anything meaningful to society beyond dribbling a basketball should be loathe to lecture anyone as to who might be taking up too much space on planet Earth.
(And Mo’Kelly might also add, Shirley’s basketball contributions were negligible at best; his name a trivia question on its best day.)
If there is any single individual who embodies the ugly and arrogant Americanism despised around the world in the wake of the Bush administration, Paul Shirley is it.
But Mo’Kelly digresses…
At the same time, ESPN has the “right” to have nothing to do with individuals such as Shirley or their associated commentary. The same was true for MSNBC and Don Imus and the same is true for the continuing relationship between Sirius Radio and Howard Stern. We have a right to do business or not do business with whom we please. The first amendment doesn’t guarantee employment and we should be thankful it does not. Paul Shirley is “free” to disregard the rules and guidelines of ESPN and offer his theories on race, class and birth control via some other media outlet. The internet is an infinitely vast landscape. Yet in this free speech dialogue, the rest of us are “free” to ridicule his ignorance accordingly.
Paul Shirley is simply the latest in a long line of athletes/entertainers who wrongly assumed that because he/she has a platform in which to express him/herself it somehow validates the subsequent opinion.
It doesn’t.
It only magnifies our awareness of their woeful ignorance on issues wholly unrelated to their expertise. Paul and others like him should leave the heavy lifting of race and politics to the trained professionals and go back to doing what he does best, wallowing in mediocrity on and off the court.
6 responses to “ESPN Was Smart to Fire Paul Shirley”
Notwithstanding my previously stated concern, and a quite real one, that corporate censorship will surpass government censorship as the real issue in the very near future:
(a) We agree that ESPN had a right and perhaps an obligation to deal with what this man wrote, whether that meant firing him or taking some other course;
(b) The remarks themselves were reprehensible and beyond the pale.
Morris, where you and I typically diverge is that you stand up and cheer when somebody is punished for words they speak, whereas I would rather deal with the issues themselves.
In other words, so Reid said this or Blago said that. Why waste time and energy having feelings about that? Why let it knock me off my spot?
On the other hand, if it raises issues that don’t have neat little answers, that’s gravy to me: Let’s pull up some chairs and hash this thing out.
So here we have an example of a blogger who said something we didn’t like. Your solution, one about which you are so enthusiastic, is to silence the man. Mine is to discuss the issue he raises: That we Americans tend not to take responsibility for the messes we cause to, most commonly, poor and small nations, especially those close to home.
If somebody wasn’t being the voice of that tendency, perhaps we wouldn’t face the issue or have the discussion.
You are technically correct that corporate censorship is the right of an individual business and will always be so, and should always be so. What concerns me is that we as a society have a tendency to think we’ve solved something when we make somebody go away.
There's nothing wrong with an intelligent discourse over the issues regarding Haiti. But the fact of the matter is that Shirley did not raise any of them. He was taking potshots at people who were still digging friends and relatives from the rubble and chastising them for being simply "too many" (i.e. not using birth control). He was in no way adding to the discussion and is a generous read to imply as much.
I "cheer" (your word), because repugnant behavior should be treated as such. Yes, I cheer the dismissal of a man delighting in the ruin of city. I would also cheer the dismissal of anyone delighting in 9/11. Common sense and decency are to be cheered. It wasn't a highbrow conversation of the underlying issues as to why Haiti continues to struggle. It again was a monumentally bad joke and wholly disrespectful. Shirley gets no credit for starting any such meaningful discussion. We are, he isn't.
I don't wish for Shirley to be silent. As I've said, he can go elsewhere and do what he does or he could've stayed at ESPN and done what he was specifically hired to do. He's more than welcome to be as ignorant as he so wishes. I will neither support nor endorse those who give him a platform to do so. It's unchecked ignorance such as his which has longer-lasting consequences for Haiti because it speaks to a larger distaste for people of color. The same types of arguments have been levied at Africa and the Middle East. I've heard Shirley's exact rant from others before, it just wasn't directed at Haiti.
The same has been said about Black people in urban America…birth control and all. The fact that this particular rant was ALSO directed at "Black" people wasn't any coincidence. His argument wouldn't change for a discussion of New Orleans either.
This is about poverty…which is a meaningful discussion. It applies to urban America, Cuba, Haiti, Africa and many parts of Central and South America. Paul Shirley made no such effort to begin that conversation. He simply mocked the dead and dying.
Yes, I sided with ESPN and am very comfortable with agreeing with their decision.
Congrats on the HuffPost placement. It was the highest hit on Google News.
Just the other day the Lt.Gov of SC said something comparing poor folks to stray animals, about not encouraging them to breed.
You know what my reaction was? He's an idiot, now let's discuss this.
I honestly have no reaction at all to ESPN "letting" him air his views on "their" space. He didn't threaten anybody, he merely offered his opinion (in a very pointed way, especially his reference to "the rest of the world") and revealed, to me, to be an intellectual lightweight, as you also noted.
But I can't get my head around the idea that a blogger's opinions should get him fired from his blog host, especially for what appears to be a first offense.
It's cowardly, and to the extent that it appeals to people like you who take pride in bringing people down for the words they choose, it's also pandering and a very dangerous precedent.
As we've begun discussing on the other thread, I now know that Shirley's blog post was at another site entirely.
As I said on the other thread, that raises the stakes even more.
[…] ESPN Was Smart to Fire Paul Shirley “I haven’t donated a cent to the Haitian relief effort. And I probably will not,” wrote Mr. Shirley on the Flip Collective website. “I haven’t donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don’t give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don’t think the guy with the sign that reads ‘Need You’re Help’ is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don’t think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.” Dear Haitians – First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded. As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while? Sincerely, The Rest of the World […]