Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I hear you, but is that something really that important that the NCAA has to regulate it? The answer to that is an obvious no.

Photoshoots! OMGGGG NOOOOOOOO!

Eh, they're pretty toothless and ineffectual otherwise.  Which is good, because it limits the damage they can do.

I'm fine with them providing relief and some air cover to my coaching staff so they can just start denying these kids their photoshoots.

"Oh, you want some live tigers and a helicopter and the head coach serving you couscous on a platter for your photo shoot?  Man, we would totally love to do that for you, because you are SO important.  But alas, the NCAA has decide it's not allowed.  They're so terrible right?"

Silly stupid photoshoots are absolutely NOT how I want my coaches spending their time when recruits are present.  It's a case of saving the kids from their own naivete and silliness.  That's a good thing.

Like I said, I'm 99% sure that the coaches themselves are the ones who brought it up and asked for some help.

The coaches don't need a rule from the NCAA not to do photoshoots. They can say hey we don't do that here, we're a big boy football team that wins football games, not takes pictures. There is no need for an NCAA bylaw outlawing photoshoots....

NCAA has huge problems with photoshoots, but doesn't care about schools spending $300k on an official visit for a 5* QB....make it make sense.

Texas can't say "no, go pound sand" if Alabama is saying, "sure, bring on the helicopters."  That's just not the way it works.

It started with one coach bending over too far, and then next thing you know everyone has to do it.

Now they have air cover and can say "your idea of a photoshoot sitting on top of an Aztec pyramid with thousands of topless slave women sounds great, but darn that mean old NCAA just won't let us."

Simple solution that gets the coaching staffs off the hook.

And the reason the NCAA "doesn't care" about schools spending $300K on an an official visit, is because the schools haven't told them to care.  The schools are fine with that.  And no it doesn't make sense but there you have it.

US spends more than $1+ trillion per year on defense if everything is included (interest payments on borrowing for 7 wars, nuclear weapons programs- which is part of DoE budget and not DoD). More than the next 12 countries combined, 10 of which are officially "allies". The US has over 800 military bases around the world. Russia and China probably have less than 10. Combined. We have literally 300 bases encircling China alone- ready to bomb on that ass if need be. They have exactly zero encircling us. We've destroyed country after country across the globe over the last 70+ years. But they're the boogey man and we're suppose to be afraid of them. Lol.

Problem is the blatant and out and out corruption in the Pentagon. The Pentagon has yet to pass an audit and can't account for half of it's f**king assets. They spend $1,200 on a hammer and $500 on a toilet seat. $1.7 trillion on a fighter jet program that only flies 50% of the time. Lol. Pentagon's latest pet project is using Ukraine as cannon fodder to launder hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons contracts to it's largest defense contracting benefactors.

Close the bases. Defund Ukraine. Cut the military budget from $1+ trillion to $100 billion. Don't stop there. Start taking a hatchet to every bloated unnecessary gov't bureaucracy. Dismantle the IRS. CIA. FBI. Homeland Security. Blow it all up, scale it all back, fire literally everyone, restart and rebuild them with more tightly constrained controls, get rid of the bloat, the waste, the rot, and the dogshit waste of space piece of shit human beings who work in most of these bloated corpse useless corrupt gov't agencies. 

I'm with you on a lot of this, but the bolded part....no.  That's the worst idea possible.  You can trim the fat and reorganize without taping a bunch of dynamite to it and blowing it up.  Starting back at zero would be self-inflicted harm to the country.

There are 1,900 special districts in Florida.  Yet DeSantis shut down only 1 of them, and it happened to be the 1 that spoke out about his legislation.

Its a bit troubling that you would say "they can't just say whatever they want".

Yes, they absolutely can.  It's free speech protected by Amendment 1 of the constitution.

Are we to the point where we are talking about shutting down free speech because we don't think the source should be able to say what they said?

You take this the wrong way.

Someone beholden to me (my employees, for example) can't just say whatever they want to me. They are nails and I have the hammer.

(Simple example. I have great people so this would not happen.)

You take this the wrong way.

Someone beholden to me (my employees, for example) can't just say whatever they want to me. They are nails and I have the hammer.

(Simple example. I have great people so this would not happen.)

I am hesitant to weigh in here, but your employer-employee relationship is not that of a company in a state and a state (even a company given a great deal of historical largesse).

The government is not supposed to punish you for most speech, especially speech redressing the government. That whole kerfuffle was directly described as punishment and an effort to control what was being said.

Now, one can say that act was poor form, but like the pol overall. But it was an attempt by government to tamp down speech it didn’t like. If we want to argue that the government should have broad ability to do that, it’s a conversation. But it is what it is.

Nope. Anyone can say whatever they want at any time. Consequences may follow.

Another example. If I publicly praised #45, the FBI would be on me.

But no, that's not suppression.

Exactly. 

Free speech is such a nuanced concept.

If an NFL owner says “ I like white people better than black people” will there be consequences.  Very serious consequences?  Off course. What if a governor said that? A mayor?   

Yes- that is an extreme example and obviously racist. 

But what if it’s the other way around. What if the comment was “ I like black people better than White people”.    Would there be consequences?  Serious ones?  Our real life examples tell us that there would not be.    So who really has “ Free Speech”

If Disney wants to make a public stand on a highly contentious issue- they are free to do so. But, like Bud Light- you should weigh what the potential consequences might be. 

Exactly. 

Free speech is such a nuanced concept.

If an NFL owner says “ I like white people better than black people” will there be consequences.  Very serious consequences?  Off course. What if a governor said that? A mayor?   

Yes- that is an extreme example and obviously racist. 

But what if it’s the other way around. What if the comment was “ I like black people better than White people”.    Would there be consequences?  Serious ones?  Our real life examples tell us that there would not be.    So who really has “ Free Speech”

If Disney wants to make a public stand on a highly contentious issue- they are free to do so. But, like Bud Light- you should weigh what the potential consequences might be. 

There are, of course, consequences for unpopular speech. An NFL owner might, like Dan Snyder, have so much public outcry that they have to sell their team. A governor or a mayor will probably get drilled in the next election. Bud Light saw a major drop in sales. If people don't like what Disney said, they can respond appropriately by boycotting Disney. 

The idea of the First Amendment is that there shouldn't be *government* consequences/punishment for unpopular speech. I don't see any nuance we have to explore there.