Overdefensive of offensive Speech?

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Feb 28, 2000 | by Patrick Hruby

Lucrative sports franchises trade on public goodwill and face tremendous pressure to punish players who make inappropriate remarks to the press. But doing so requires team officials to make value judgments, something few of them are prepared to do.

From salary caps to touchdown dances to the lengths of players' jerseys, the major leagues regulate almost every conceivable aspect of sports-related activity. But should they be regulating speech? That's the question facing Major League Baseball in the wake of Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker's recent remarks about immigrants, minorities and homosexuals. And in a larger sense, it's the dilemma confronting all league executives whenever athletes or owners make statements that antagonize the public.

"I don't envy the position the leagues are put in," says Jeffrey Rosenthal, a professor of sports law at Rutgers University and chairman of the New York Bar Association's committee on professional sports. "I'm sure 90 percent of fans would like them to do something. And they have to protect their public image. But where does it stop? [Utah Jazz forward] Karl Malone is now a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. If the National Basketball Association doesn't like that, can he be disciplined?"

Consider Rocker, who said in an interview with Sports Illustrated that he would never play for a New York team because he didn't want to ride a subway train next to "some queer with AIDS." The 25-year-old relief pitcher also bashed immigrants, made fun of Asian women and called a black teammate a "fat monkey."

Although Rocker later apologized, minority and homosexual groups and even some of Rocker's fellow Braves have called for fines, suspension or dismissal. Moreover, baseball commissioner Bud Selig ordered Rocker to undergo psychological testing before considering further action.

"Should Rocker be punished?" asked Mark Anshel, a sports psychologist at Texas A&M University. "Yes. It's called limit setting. Responsible organizations have very clear policies of what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior -- and part of that includes making statements that have adverse effects on the communities that these organizations depend on for support, income and longevity. Athletes are entitled to their biases. But they are not entitled to express those biases in a communitywide manner. They are being paid to represent a community, city and culture, not siimply their own personal viewpoints."

On the other side of the debate, Jeff Pearlman -- the reporter who interviewed Rocker -- has said that athletes should be free to express their opinions without the threat of punishment. Others agree. "Do you really believe we can legislate stupidity?" asks Peter Titlebaum, assistant professor of health and sports science at Dayton University. "Rocker is stupid, he's ignorant, but he's entitled to be that way."

Braves owner Ted Turner agrees with this line of reasoning. "He's just a kid," Turner said on CNN's Moneyline. "I think he was off his rocker when he said those things. He has apologized. I don't think we ought to hold it against him forever. Let's give him another chance. He didn't commit a crime."

Collective-bargaining agreements in all four major leagues -- the National Football League, or NFL; National Hockey League, or NHL; National Basketball Association, or NBA; and Major League Baseball, or MLB -- grant commissioners the power to punish acts deemed detrimental to the "best interests" of the sport. The MLB, for instance, fined and suspended Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott in 1993 for negative remarks about blacks and Jews. Likewise, the NBA fined Chicago Bulls forward Dennis Rodman $50,000 in 1997 for anti-Mormon rhetoric.

"There are certain rules that you know going in, the minute you sign a contract," says NBA spokesman Chris Brienza. "And you're expected to uphold them. Period."

But the inherent vagueness of the various "best-interest" clauses means that leagues evaluate offensive remarks on a case-by-case basis. And that, in turn, leaves leagues playing speech cop -- a subjective and difficult task made harder by the sheer volume of "trash talk" so common to athletic competition.

"Why is trash talk about someone's mother different than insulting someone's race or ethnic background?" asks Anshel. "It can be argued that it doesn't make a difference, that it's all a way of expressing emotions that are heightened during competition."

Moreover, policing speech can create the appearance of a double standard. In 1981, Turner suggested that unemployed blacks be used to move MX missiles from silo to silo to save money; in 1990, he said Christianity was "a religion for losers"; in 1996, he likened fellow media mogul Rupert Murdoch to Hitler; and last year he told a Polish joke about Pope John Paul II while ridiculing the Ten Commandments. Unlike Schott, however, Turner went unpunished.

"It gets very dubious, trying to decide on what's offensive speech and what the intent of it was," says Howard Fienberg, an online hockey columnist.