NationStates Jolt Archive

Anti-Bush Sign Has Bridge World in an Uproar (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14brid.html?ex=1195707600&en=a31d0ad83b5ae938&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”

By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”

“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States 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 U.S.B.F. 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.

A bridge team that won this year's championship is under threat of being suspended from their league because they have expressed an opinion. It was a simple message they had, they were telling the world, "we did not vote for Bush", yet they have been labelled by some as treasonous. But if they had voted for Kerry and possibly Gore or not at all, then how it is treasonous if they display this message?

Hmmm, so is telling people you didn't vote for Bush treasonous, or just not voting for Bush?

From the same article

Robert S. Wolff, one of the country’s pre-eminent bridge players, who has served as an executive and board member of several bridge organizations, said that he understood that the women might have had a legal right to do what they did but that they had offended many people.

“While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event,” he wrote by e-mail."

Is what they did protected under Free Speech? Yes.

Is what they did completely inappropriate and offensive? Yes.

Is what they did protected under Free Speech? Yes.

Is what they did completely inappropriate and offensive? Yes.

Going into politics at a bridge award ceremony is fairly inappropriate, I'll grant you that, but how is a sign saying 'We didn't vote for Bush' offensive?

From the same article



Oh, great another Team Shrub cheerleader. :rolleyes:

Is what they did protected under Free Speech? Yes.

Is what they did completely inappropriate and offensive? Yes.

Take your pro-Bush bullshit and shove it.

Going into politics at a bridge award ceremony is fairly inappropriate, I'll grant you that, but how is a sign saying 'We didn't vote for Bush' offensive?

Well for one thing it reeks of arrogance.

Take your pro-Bush bullshit and shove it.

This is so hilarious I can't find the emoticon to convey it. Now even a mere ROFL. Just because I said what they did was inappropriate and offensive, does not make me Pro-Bush.

Well for one thing it reeks of arrogance.

How is it arrogant to state an opinion?

Well for one thing it reeks of arrogance.

I don't see how. What's arrogant about letting people know you didn't vote for Bush?

How is it arrogant to state an opinion you fucking tool?

Flames are for cooking, not debating.

Well for one thing it reeks of arrogance.



This is so hilarious I can't find the emoticon to convey it. Now even a mere ROFL. Just because I said what they did was inappropriate and offensive, does not make me Pro-Bush.

Flames are for cooking, not debating.


He deserved it.

I don't see how. What's arrogant about letting people know you didn't vote for Bush?

It just seems to stink of "We didn't vote for Buuuuuush! We didn't vote for Buuuuush! You were wrooooong! We were riiiiiiiiight!"

Vaklavia: If you don't cut it out, Newbie, then you'll be deserving of a timeout. You jumped on my statement and assumed I was Pro-Bush. You are quite wrong.

This is so hilarious I can't find the emoticon to convey it. Now even a mere ROFL. Just because I said what they did was inappropriate and offensive, does not make me Pro-Bush.

If you dont like Bush then what is your fucking problem?

It just seems to stink of "We didn't vote for Buuuuuush! We didn't vote for Buuuuush! You were wrooooong! We were riiiiiiiiight!"

Yeah, what ever, go back to Protest Warrior.

He deserved it.
Irrelevant.
It just seems to stink of "We didn't vote for Buuuuuush! We didn't vote for Buuuuush! You were wrooooong! We were riiiiiiiiight!"
Hmmm, this is true.

Hmmm, this is true.

More than anything, the U.S.B.F. is a private institution. It can limit the free speech of its members, and reprimand members for what they say, as it wants. The 1st Amendment iirc only protects against government violation of freedom of speech/press/etc.

Vaklavia: If you don't cut it out, Newbie, then you'll be deserving of a timeout. You jumped on my statement and assumed I was Pro-Bush. You are quite wrong.

And yet you havent proved it. Nor have you stated why this is oh so offensive.

Irrelevant.



How is it?

And yet you havent proved it. Nor have you stated why this is oh so offensive.

A little bit of a newsflash for you: UN P's been around on NSG for a good, long time. His views have been made clear on numerous occasions and are immaterial to this discussion. He has already mentioned why it might be taken as offensive, a point conceded by the only other person actually debating this topic at the moment.

You, on the other hand, entered this debate flaming and adding nothing to the discussion, being nothing more than a rude and offensive disruption to the discourse that had already been going on. Kindly correct your behavior or anticipate a short stay on this forum.

How is it?

Flaming is agasint the rules, regardless of how much you think someone deserves it.

Hmmm, this is true.

But it was addressed specifically to non-Americans, if I read the article correctly. So I don't think it's really gloating.

But it was addressed specifically to non-Americans, if I read the article correctly. So I don't think it's really gloating.

Could certainly be something along the lines of "Don't blame us, we didn't vote for him."

If you dont like Bush then what is your fucking problem?

Word of advice, knock off the flaming or you won't last long.

How is it?

Coz it is. 'He deserved to be called a tool', is irrelevant to the topic here.

Still I guess if by, deserving it, you mean coz he disagreed with you, then I guess the world is full of tools, shit if you disagree with me, you must also be one huh?

And yet you havent proved it. Nor have you stated why this is oh so offensive.

I'm not going to drag out evidence to prove my Anti-Bush credentials to you. It would be a waste of my time. Search for posts made by me yourself, if you like. Or you could actually take the time to gauge the character of other posters, instead of pouncing on just anything you might percieve as "Pro-Bush".

Also, I think it's offensive because its politicizing a non-political event.

I'm not going to drag out evidence to prove my Anti-Bush credentials to you. It would be a waste of my time. Search for posts made by me yourself, if you like. Or you could actually take the time to gauge the character of other posters, instead of pouncing on just anything you might percieve as "Pro-Bush".

Also, I think it's offensive because its politicizing a non-political event.

What is considered offensive? Its a bloody hard call really, it just shows that offense is taken more than given. That is to say people choose to take offense or not and so the onus really is on the offended, rather than the offender.

In illustration, I am not at all offended by the bringing of politics anywhere, I can honestly not think of a single thing that would offend me in this situation.

A declaration of political allegiance, or non-allegiance, at a card game? Really what do you find offensive about that?

More than anything, the U.S.B.F. is a private institution. It can limit the free speech of its members, and reprimand members for what they say, as it wants. The 1st Amendment iirc only protects against government violation of freedom of speech/press/etc.

True, I'd agree they have every right to limit their free speech, but I still disagree with them doing it. Had they actually said something truly offensive, like "Thank God for AIDS, God hates fags!" then I'd understand, but simply saying "don't blame us, we didn't vote for him" is not offensive by any reasonable standard.

Oh, and this story reminds me of a wonderful picture I saw...
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v142/161/91/692097098/n692097098_208120_2916.jpg
:D

A declaration of political allegiance, or non-allegiance, at a card game? Really what do you find offensive about that?

Well, it's because I hate politicizing. I do not want to discuss politics outside of a political forum (internet or RL). If I am taking part in some sort of activity totally outside the realm of politics, I would hate it if someone decides to try and make such an activity about politics.

Politicizing of non-political activities creates a polarization of the community that engages in that activity.

Well, it's because I hate politicizing. I do not want to discuss politics outside of a political forum (internet or RL). If I am taking part in some sort of activity totally outside the realm of politics, I would hate it if someone decides to try and make such an activity about politics.

Politicizing of non-political activities creates a polarization of the community that engages in that activity.

Hah but as somebody once said, politics is life. I mean can you honestly name one aspect of life that has nowt to do with politics?

Bearing in mind what you say though it seems that you are more angry about this type of politicsing, than you are offended by it?

Which brings to mind something else to ponder, what does it truly mean to be offended or to find something offensive?

True, I'd agree they have every right to limit their free speech, but I still disagree with them doing it. Had they actually said something truly offensive, like "Thank God for AIDS, God hates fags!" then I'd understand, but simply saying "don't blame us, we didn't vote for him" is not offensive by any reasonable standard.

Oh, and this story reminds me of a wonderful picture I saw...
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v142/161/91/692097098/n692097098_208120_2916.jpg
:D

Awesome.

It does seem a bit... excessive to label these people 'treasonous' for simply saying that they didn't vote for the current encumbant of the White House. If they were saying 'Death to Bush' or actively advocating the murder of the guy, then that possibly would count as treasonous. Otherwise it seems that the writer of that article ridiculously pro-Bush to the point that they are entirely blind to an opinion to the contrary of their's.

I do see the point that some people might have been offended by the fact that these people are politicising an event that has nothing to do with politics. Some people may use the event to get away from the whole political seen and get on with people they might otherwise not have met.

Well, it's because I hate politicizing. I do not want to discuss politics outside of a political forum (internet or RL). If I am taking part in some sort of activity totally outside the realm of politics, I would hate it if someone decides to try and make such an activity about politics.

Politicizing of non-political activities creates a polarization of the community that engages in that activity.

What would your feelings be if they had worn T-shirts that said the same thing? People do that all the time, with all sorts of slogans, at all sorts of events, and there are rarely objections to it.

I am wondering if the objection here is more to the fact that they went out of their way to call attention to themselves? Just a thought.


Frankly, while I think that perhaps it was an inappropriate venue for their message, the easiest thing to do would have been for the master of ceremonies to say "Good to know. Moving on..." and the whole thing would have been over and done with. By talking of treason, the organization has blown the whole thing up to such a proportion that one must wonder if, perhaps, THEY are using it to get themselves some prime time news air time?

More than anything, the U.S.B.F. is a private institution. It can limit the free speech of its members, and reprimand members for what they say, as it wants. The 1st Amendment iirc only protects against government violation of freedom of speech/press/etc.

However, if it wasn't against its rules at the time.....they're actually been 'charged' with conduct unbecoming, rather than making a political statement.

From the article...
David L. Anderson, a bridge player who supports the team, said it was common to see players at international tournaments sporting buttons bearing the date “1-20-09,” when George W. Bush will hand off to a new president, as well as buttons reading “Support Our Troops.”

“They don’t go after those people,” Mr. Anderson said

Certainly to a non-American "support our troops" would be taken as a political statement...

However, if it wasn't against its rules at the time.....they're actually been 'charged' with conduct unbecoming, rather than making a political statement.

From the article...


Certainly to a non-American "support our troops" would be taken as a political statement...

Granted, it's a pretty iffy and equally political move for the U.S.B.F. to take action against them.

I guess I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, yeah it's not something I really agree with. On the other, it's their organization to with as they please.

It does seem a bit... excessive to label these people 'treasonous' for simply saying that they didn't vote for the current encumbant of the White House. If they were saying 'Death to Bush' or actively advocating the murder of the guy, then that possibly would count as treasonous. Otherwise it seems that the writer of that article ridiculously pro-Bush to the point that they are entirely blind to an opinion to the contrary of their's.

I do see the point that some people might have been offended by the fact that these people are politicising an event that has nothing to do with politics. Some people may use the event to get away from the whole political seen and get on with people they might otherwise not have met.

Actually, the US Constitution specifically defines treason:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, as far as my understanding goes, saying "Death to Bush," would not be treason, though it might be covered under some other crime. Though I'm no lawyer, so I could be mistaken.

The problem that most people have is because they are unable to understand alternative reasons why the team made the sign. Maybe they were tired from getting verbally attacked for being from the same country as Bush and were trying to distance themselves from all the bad feelings that other countries have towards him. It wasn't treasonous nor was it particularly mean it is just sort of a non issue. Just like holding a sign that says "Bong Hits For Jesus" big freaking deal. True Americans defend the right of others to say what they want. Because freedom of speech only means something if it protects the speech we don't want to hear as well as what we do want to hear.

The problem that most people have is because they are unable to understand alternative reasons why the team made the sign. Maybe they were tired from getting verbally attacked for being from the same country as Bush and were trying to distance themselves from all the bad feelings that other countries have towards him. It wasn't treasonous nor was it particularly mean it is just sort of a non issue. Just like holding a sign that says "Bong Hits For Jesus" big freaking deal. True Americans defend the right of others to say what they want. Because freedom of speech only means something if it protects the speech we don't want to hear as well as what we do want to hear.

That's what it seems like most days here. If you say something that is in disagreement with certain types of people, you're labelled because your opinion doesn't fall into line with theirs.

That's what it seems like most days here. If you say something that is in disagreement with certain types of people, you're labelled because your opinion doesn't fall into line with theirs.

also remember, Freedom of speech and expression does not mean freedom from the reactions of what you say or do. Realize that for everyone that is calling them traitors, you have an equal (if not more) people supporting them.

While I may not agree with what they did, I agree that they could do it. and the results I'll not fight against because those actions are not illegal (and I believe they are appealing that decision... more proof of the freedoms that they have.) had they been thrown in jail or worse, Gitmo... then hell yes, I'll be joining those in protest.

And thus the importance of the secret vote becomes apparant.

If not voting republican is akin to treason, that makes 75% of the US population treasonous.

That menu card stated nothing more and nothing less than "We did not vote for Bush"

It wasn't arrogant, demeaning or in any way overly critical. It was a simple statement of fact, which could only be offensive if one of the players did in fact vote for Bush.

ahem. I hate to be offensive on my second post, but had anyone taken the time to read the whole article instead of jumping in with "OMG dey h8 bush, tratots!!!!!!!" or "bush is teh suck0rs, rock on!", they would have seen that as the tourney was going on, other players were giving the americans a hard time about bush. This sign was simply her way of going "please, buzz off, I don't like him anymore than you do"

Oh, great another Team Shrub cheerleader. :rolleyes:

President George W. Bush has been the greatest American President this decade has ever seen.

President George W. Bush has been the greatest American President this decade has ever seen.

He's also been the ONLY American president this decade has ever seen... but that will change in 2008.

Would that be protected speech under the 1st Amendment? Absolutely. But the government is not prosecuting them for treason.

Their bridge league is the one that is expressing their ire, and saying, "If you want to make statements that make the US gov't look bad (in our opinion), we don't want you representing us."

The league is within their rights to censure the players, though I would have hoped they would not have done it. Inappropriate, perhaps, but I don't think a simple statement using neutral language like that is "offensive".

He's also been the ONLY American president this decade has ever seen... but that will change in 2008.

I am fully aware of that. :p

On another note, I was not aware there were international Bridge tournaments. Do people like...watch those on T.V?

Well, it's because I hate politicizing. I do not want to discuss politics outside of a political forum (internet or RL). If I am taking part in some sort of activity totally outside the realm of politics, I would hate it if someone decides to try and make such an activity about politics.

Politicizing of non-political activities creates a polarization of the community that engages in that activity.

Ever seen a political ad you didn't want to? Did you ring up the station you saw it on and demand they take it off air?

Ever seen a political ad you didn't want to? Did you ring up the station you saw it on and demand they take it off air?

No. I don't object to that because it's an ad, seperate from all my favourite programs. They announce beforehand it is a political ad.

However, if I was watching Doctor Who and suddenly the Daleks and the Doc suddenly got covered up with a subliminal advert saying "Vote Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem" I'd be right pissed.

I wonder why they did vote for? I await the scandal now

Rolling squid;13219285']ahem. I hate to be offensive on my second post, but had anyone taken the time to read the whole article instead of jumping in with "OMG dey h8 bush, tratots!!!!!!!" or "bush is teh suck0rs, rock on!", they would have seen that as the tourney was going on, other players were giving the americans a hard time about bush. This sign was simply her way of going "please, buzz off, I don't like him anymore than you do"

Bridge fight! Bridge fight!!

Ever seen a political ad you didn't want to? Did you ring up the station you saw it on and demand they take it off air?

I think the point is more they made themselves look like a bunch of dicks by doing something they think would look cool

No. I don't object to that because it's an ad, seperate from all my favourite programs. They announce beforehand it is a political ad.

However, if I was watching Doctor Who and suddenly the Daleks and the Doc suddenly got covered up with a subliminal advert saying "Vote Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem" I'd be right pissed.

We're subject to that bullshit here in Canada. The Conservatives are airing continual political attack ads against the Liberals and there has been no call for an election and we're not near the time for the next election.

President George W. Bush has been the greatest American President this decade has ever seen.

If memory serves he is the only one this decade...if that is the case I concur..even if I don't like it

If memory serves he is the only one this decade...if that is the case I concur..even if I don't like it

Yes.
The comment was meant in a joking manner.
Ha.

Ha.

We're subject to that bullshit here in Canada. The Conservatives are airing continual political attack ads against the Liberals and there has been no call for an election and we're not near the time for the next election.

Wow, that sounds like it really sucks. How often do they air exactly?

So, it's fine to put "We voted for Bush" sign up?
But then you'd look like idiots if you did ...

If memory serves he is the only one this decade...if that is the case I concur..even if I don't like it

Technically, Bill Clinton was President for the first three weeks of the decade. Still not a contest I'd care to judge.

Technically, Bill Clinton was President for the first three weeks of the decade. Still not a contest I'd care to judge.

sshh... we count decades in nice even plots of 10.
So this decade is 2000-2010.

/makingthingsupasIgo

Flames are for cooking, not debating.

And campfires *nods*

sshh... we count decades in nice even plots of 10.
So this decade is 2000-2010.

/makingthingsupasIgo

So this decade is 11 years long, eh?

Is what they did protected under Free Speech? Yes.

Is what they did completely inappropriate and offensive? Yes.

Question #1, correct.

Question #2, not so much. "Bush is a wanker"? Now THAT's potenitally offensive. "I didn't vote for Bush" is no more offensive than "I wasn't rooting for the Red Sox" (as opposed to say "The Red Sox suck"). Sometimes we have the choice about whether we're going to be offended or not. Some people, in fact I'd wager a majority of people, choose unwisely.

Well, it's because I hate politicizing. I do not want to discuss politics outside of a political forum (internet or RL). If I am taking part in some sort of activity totally outside the realm of politics, I would hate it if someone decides to try and make such an activity about politics.

Politicizing of non-political activities creates a polarization of the community that engages in that activity.

If all politics is local, then everything local is politics. It's nothing you can escape when you're among other people...no matter how much you wish you could.

Also, for the decade-challenged, the election of 2000 happened in November of that year. That means that Clinton was President not for three weeks, but three weeks and a year into the current decade (as Inauguration Day was January 20, 2001). I don't know about you, but if you're going to call decades by their last "10" (as in 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.), then it seems to me you're starting the decade with the zero year.

He deserved it.

Irrelevant. Flaming is still taboo.

Anti-Bush Sign Has Bridge World in an Uproar (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14brid.html?ex=1195707600&en=a31d0ad83b5ae938&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”

By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”

“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States 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 U.S.B.F. 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.

A bridge team that won this year's championship is under threat of being suspended from their league because they have expressed an opinion. It was a simple message they had, they were telling the world, "we did not vote for Bush", yet they have been labelled by some as treasonous. But if they had voted for Kerry and possibly Gore or not at all, then how it is treasonous if they display this message?

I don't think it is treasonous, offensive to some perhaps, but nowhere have I seen it written that offending someone is a traitorous act.