Friday, January 03, 2014

Why Chris Kluwe is different than Phil Robertson

Chris Kluwe, fully aware of the professional repercussions he has faced and will likely face further, took a stand against bigotry. He called out coaches who either actively promoted hate or passively allowed it to flourish, and did so by relating only what he could cite exactly. He also gave credit to Vikings owner Zygi Wilf for standing up for him. Kluwe's defenders praised him for coming forward, even if they didn't necessarily think that his firing was unrelated to his performance.

Phil Robertson expressed a bigoted view with no apparent regard for the consequences. His condemnation cast a wide net, even wider than seen by most of his bigoted brethren. He cited the Bible as his "evidence." Robertson's defenders complained about his First Amendment rights being infringed.

Just like with Robertson, Kluwe's First Amendment rights don't immunize him from the consequences of his speech. (The same should be true for Kluwe's coaches, if what the ex-punter claims is correct.)

Both men have equal free-speech rights. The difference is that Kluwe is right. 

No comments: