Unfortunately, however, O’Rourke, Warren and Silver demonstrate the tendency of too many progressives to cut constitutional corners, to despise and bully adversaries, and to practice theatrical but selective indignation about attacks on fundamental American principles, some of which they themselves traduce. Just what we did not need in our dispiriting civic life: additional evidence that there really is no such thing as rock bottom.
So writes George Will in “Progressives are all too willing to cut constitutional corners,” Washington Post, October 16, 2019.
On all those charges, Will makes a solid case that Beto O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren are doing what he says they’re doing.
On the charge that the NBA’s Adam Silver is cutting constitutional corners, Will completely fails. He gives not a sliver (pun not intended) of evidence that Silver is doing anything to violate the constitution; Silver doesn’t even advocate violating the freedom of speech clause in the Constitution, although he may not be good on other aspects of the Constitution.
Private organizations like the National Basketball Association can have any rules they want about the behavior of players and executives. That means they can require that players and executives grovel before totalitarian governments.
Interestingly, though, Silver even went above and beyond, defending Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey’s right to speak out on China. Here’s a snippet from the Matt Bonisteel, “NBA Commissioner Adam Silver says league supports free speech, must live with consequences,” Washington Post, October 8.
“I want this to be clear, and I think there’s been some confusion around this: We are not apologizing for Daryl exercising his freedom of expression,” the commissioner said.
Silver added that while the protests in Hong Kong are a “a third-rail issue in China,” there are values “that are deeply rooted in the DNA of the NBA, and that includes freedom of expression for our employees.”
It’s possible that Silver squeezed Morey behind closed doors, but we don’t know that. What we can be reasonably sure of is that Silver did not fine Morey as that wonderful critic of oppressive governments LeBron James seemed to have urged. Moreover, according to this article, here’s how Silver responded to LeBron’s suggestion:
But Silver pushed back against James, saying he’d never disciplined any of the myriad players or coaches who’ve routinely criticized President Trump, his administration or his policies. He said Morey deserved similar latitude, and reportedly told James the same freedoms enjoyed by anti-Trump players applied to Morey challenging China’s government.
Sounds pretty good to me.
There is one more way Silver could show that he doesn’t grovel: tell the Congressmen who gave him unsolicited advice to take a flying leap.
HT2 Don Boudreaux
READER COMMENTS
Chris
Oct 17 2019 at 7:50pm
You’re right and Will is wrong on this one.
Silver’s initial response was less than “above and beyond” as the article you cite notes. But he got it right quickly enough. Certainly better than James.
Alexandre Padilla
Oct 18 2019 at 6:22pm
David,
That’s correct, private businesses are not subject to the First Amendment and that’s why many talking heads from ESPN are wrong arguing that the NFL was violating First Amendment when ostracizing Kaepernick for refusing to standard during the National Anthem.
I think where people are confused is in the fact that Silver, while supporting Morey’s right to free speech, also pointed to how many millions of dollars they lost because of Morey’s tweet (let’s also not forget that the Rockets’ owner also immediately released a statement arguing that the Astros don’t engage in political debates). More importantly, Silver while advocating Morey’s right to free speech didn’t go as far as condemning China’s oppressing policies.
Lebron James is far guiltier of basically implying that he supports freedom of speech and right to fight against social injustice as long as it doesn’t cost him $$$.
Obviously, the question is not about whether or not the NBA can restrict its employees’ speech; it absolutely can and I am sure some fans and owners would probably want them to do so. The more important that is beyond that post is: should businesses do business with oppressive, (borderline) dictatorial governments? This question is directly related to Mike Munger’s podcast with Russ Roberts about crony capitalism and the short discussion they had about the difference between doing something legal vs. doing what’s right. Mike Munger talks about “character.” Of course, from a business viewpoint, the NBA ought to keep maintain good business relationship with China, otherwise they are leaving billions of dollars on the table. On the other hand, from a moral viewpoint (doing what’s right viewpoint), should the NBA do it? I am not giving an answer either way because it’s complicated but we can’t ignore that question, can we?
Jon Murphy
Oct 19 2019 at 1:13pm
Nobody’s ignoring that question, but it is not a Constitutional or even a political question.
Comments are closed.