Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Kes
Lv 4
Kes asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 years ago

In response to the legislator who violated the Freedom of Speech of the Raven's football player?

This is the response by Chris Kluwe to the idiot legislator who attempted to deny the freedom of speech of a pro-gay NFL player.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy ******* shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh ****. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,

Chris Kluwe

P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well, isn't this interesting. I don't see much of a question here, but I'll offer my comments anyway.

    Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, this is not a violation of free speech. The first amendment protects the right of free speech from legislation by the government ("Congress shall make no law..."). As passionate as you may be about this issue, and as passionate as Chris Kluwe AND Emmett Burns might be about it, it simply is not a violation of the constitution.

    Despite the fact that this letter was written on the official Maryland House of Delegates stationary, Mr. Burns was only expressing his opinion, and urging Biscotti to take action. In fact, rather than being a violation of the first amendment, this is an EXERCISE in it. Whether you disagree with him or not, whether you hate his opinion or not, whether you side with him politically or not, he has the same right to pen this letter as Chris Kluwe has to respond.

    Imagine if a more liberal politician had written a letter to Pat Bowlen, asking him to please stop Tim Tebow for expressing his religious beliefs. That's a far less popular expression and a lot of people hate Tebow for it, and while I could very easily be wrong, my guess is that that kind of letter would have met with much more support from the public.

    On the other hand, in the Forbes article linked below, this letter was compared to the actions of Mayors Thomas Menino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, and their reaction to the way in which the owner of Chik Fil-A lives his life - and particularly their threats to him, warning him to stay out of their cities. The author of this article says that the Burns letter was far worse - but I disagree. Again, regardless of the position you take on gay marriage or gay lifestyle, Burns was offering an opinion and making a request - while Menino and Emanuel were making clear threats to use the power of their political position to estop Cathy from doing business in their cities, based on his religious beliefs. THAT is a move toward a constitutional violation.

    I find it interesting that on both sides of this argument - Emanuel and Menino with their pro-gay declarations and Emmett Burns with his anti-gay declarations, the common thread here is blind intolerance.

    We are all led to believe that the anti-freedom party, the intolerant bigots are all Republican; while I'm sorry to see intolerance and bigotry in this country at all, it is important to note that these three extreme examples of it are all being perpetrated by high-ranking Democrats.

  • 5 years ago

    1, Can she do this... Yes! untill you are 18 you technically dont have your own freedom of speech or many other rights for that matter, your rights belong to your parents, who place you in the care of the school, who place your rights with that teacher who is watching over you... and it is her job to make sure that the wishes of all the parents of the children present in her care are met... Ie if one parent wishes to keep their child in the dark about certain topics than it is her job to enforce that. 2. Is it right... Yes and No... It is sad that today, children who have a good brain in there head can't discuss topics that are important to them and widen their view of the world around them, but in contrast i don't agree that 5, 7 or 9 year olds should be discussing certain topics, so as a parent I do agree with the right the teacher has to break some discussions up, but i think it is a power that should only be used in context when it is age in-appropriate or dangerous.

  • isl247
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    This is Y!A. Do you have a question? Or did you mean to post this on your blog?

  • 9 years ago

    you seem to think that there is a question in there somewhere

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    And your question is...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.