Is Speech Really Free?

We know that the First Amendment protects our right to speech.  "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."  We also know that engaging in speech (such as the writing of this blog) can have negative consequences.  

Enes Kanter, of the NBA's Boston Celtics, has been critical of China's oppressive regime.  He had "Free Tibet" on his sneakers, and called China's President Xi a "brutal dictator."  His speech definitely had consequences.  As China is known to do, they used their economic power to retaliate.  Tencent Sports (China's streaming sports company) indicated they would not show any more Celtic games - for the foreseeable future.  (As reported by Fox.)  

Kanter's speech will likely end up costing the NBA and the Celtics and his teammates some money.  With the average salary in the NBA being reported as being $7.5 million, does that mean Kanter need not worry about pushback from his teammates?  How about from the league?  Will the team average income being over $260 million annually protect Kanter?  People overwhelmingly used to support the right to free speech, although less so in current times with political correctness, wokeness and the need for safe spaces.  But what about when that speech affects one's bottom line?  Do we still adhere to the First Amendment, or do we side with the suppression of speech?   

Speaking of the NBA...Grant Napear had been the announcer for the Sacramento Kings since 1988.  However, he was let go by the radio station that aired the games, after posting a politically incorrect Tweet.  Apparently, after George Floyd was killed, Napear Tweeted "ALL LIVES MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE."  

The company that owns the radio station fired Napear, saying that "...his recent comments about the Black Lives Matter movement do not reflect the views or values of Bonneville International Corporation.  The timing of Grant's Tweet was particularly insensitive."  As I previously stated in the blog, I do not support the Black Lives Matter movement, given its anti-police and antisemitic inclinations.  But I do support black lives, and yes, all lives.  

Dorian Abbot is a professor at the University of Chicago.  Whereas colleges and universities should be the center of free speech in our society, we know that is no longer the case.  Professor Abbot was to give a lecture at MIT, but asserts (in a 10/30-31/21 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal) that he was uninvited based on his previously expressed views.  Abbot:  "I believe that every human being should be treated as an individual worthy of dignity and respect."  No good?

Abbot:  "I care for all of my students equally.  None of them are overrepresented or underrepresented to me: they represent themselves."  No good?  Abbot:  "I believe that admissions and faculty hiring at universities are best focused on academic merit, with the goal of producing intellectual excellence."  No good?  Abbot says that if some students come from disadvantaged backgrounds, "the solution is improving K-12 education, not introducing discrimination at late stages."  No good?

Abbot makes an important point that the "safe spaces" crowd would do well to consider:  "It is normal to feel discomfort when someone contends against your strongly held beliefs.  But in a truth-seeking atmosphere, you must master this discomfort and either confront opposing arguments rationally or accept their validity."  Sounds like Classic Liberalism to me, and what used to be a fundamental part of a university's pedagogy.