Which signs are appropriate?

[jonottawa]

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

 

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Smearing an entire country because you listen to too much talk radio or watch too much FoxNoise is inappropriate for this forum.

 

Creating a 'common enemy' to rail against is a deplorable political ruse that has overstayed its welcome. When I see people doing it in a forum like this, I'll call them on it.

 

Had the comments come from an Iranian, it's a much closer call and I wouldn't have felt strongly enough to weigh in one way or the other.

[bid_em_up]

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Mr. Everything-Goes thinks something is inappropriate and wants it removed?

 

Wow.

 

Surely you are not serious?

 

Or only if it offends you, then it needs to be removed. If it offends anybody else, you dont care, is that it?

[pclayton]

It's interesting that those that are supportive of political expression at these events are relying on two very extreme situations to make their case:

 

Cherdano mentions:

"Nuke Norway, because all their bridge players are cheaters"

 

as an example of an inapproriate sign. We can all agree on that, right?

 

Jon brought up:

Hypothetical: It's 1937 and a team from Germany participates in the world championships. They hold up a sign opposing Hitler's persecution of the Jews.

 

as an example of a sign that everyone would support. Everyone agree? Good.

 

The topic of discussion isn't genocide, or nuking a peaceful Scandinavian country. It was a statement by the VC team that they 'didn't vote for bush'.

 

Well, I can't stand the Chimp either, but I have many friends that did vote for him, and still support him. Polls still say that 37% of the country approves of the job he's doing. Does the other 63% that agree with us have the right to determine what is appropriate and what isn't? It is a controversial statement and their opinion is far from universal.

 

By 17 pages of commentary, the bridge community has determined that this act was controversial. Not because its an anti-Bush sentiment - has anyone actually denigrated the act because of the message it sent? The issue is because it occurred on the winner's podium.

 

Jon also referenced:

"The difficulty of defining obscenity was memorably summarized by Justice Stewart in a concurring opinion when he said: "I know it when I see it.""

 

He wasn't defining obscenity, Potter was defining "hard-core pornography". Sort of like defining the color "red" and defining a finite shade of red.

 

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

 

However, I think this is one of the points Fred is making. If you can't define what's appropriate and what isn't then you shouldn't allow it. If some people rate to be offended from a worldwide perspective, then its inappropriate.

[mike777]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

 

I think many get confused over this whole first admendment stuff.

 

Congress/Government shall make no law..........The ACBL, WBF, your job and your house can pass all kinds of laws......abridging the freedom of speech.

[ralph23]

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

 

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Smearing an entire country because you listen to too much talk radio or watch too much FoxNoise is inappropriate for this forum.

 

Creating a 'common enemy' to rail against is a deplorable political ruse that has overstayed its welcome. When I see people doing it in a forum like this, I'll call them on it.

 

Had the comments come from an Iranian, it's a much closer call and I wouldn't have felt strongly enough to weigh in one way or the other.

ROFL !!

[ralph23]

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

 

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Only the free speech Jon approves of. Anything else is inappropriate. Mentioning Iran was too much for him it appears. Scared? If yes, of what?

 

Judging by his other posts, Jon wants to allow all signs. Does that only apply to the podium of a victory ceremony. Is a post in the BBF Forums over the top?

 

Roland

Yes, of course, especially when made about a country whose President thinks the Holocaust was a big fib made up by the pro-Israel media!!

 

It's really just too funny for comment.

[helene_t]

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

Good grief, nobody here is advocating the existence of such a committee, let alone insisting on getting a seat in such a committee for themselves.

 

If you can't follow all of this confusing debate, fair enough, I can't follow all of it either, but then just contribute your own POV instead of making up parodies of other posters' POV.

[ralph23]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

 

I think many get confused over this whole first admendment stuff.

 

Congress/Government shall make no law..........The ACBL, WBF, your job and your house can pass all kinds of laws......abridging the freedom of speech.

Actually, it doesn't say "Government" at all. It says "Congress". As in the US Congress in Washington D.C.

 

It makes no mention of any state regulatory authority.

[Walddk]

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

Good grief, nobody here is advocating the existence of such a committee, let alone insisting on getting a seat in such a committee for themselves.

Helene, are you sure you read the very first post of this thread? This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon. See also Arend's post.

 

Frankly, I think Fred's position is utter absurd, but since I have a lot of respect for Fred I'm inclined to thinking that I have misunderstood his question. Quite possibly I still haven't understood what Fred means by "appropriate" in this context.

[hotShot]

May be right about Iran !! And yes, some European countries do have laws forbidding this kind of speech. Which is why I staged the event in Chicago, not Berlin.

 

But such speech is legal in the US, i.e. state and federal governments are constitutionallly barred from criminally punishing such speech.

 

So ... even though legal where made, are you saying then that it's NOT ok with you? Or that it is, since it's legal where made?

 

I guess I was confused as to your view.

It's not my view that is confused here.

 

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 

The European constitutions I'm familiar with guaranty the dignity of human beings and freedom of speech as constitutional rights. This way the freedom of speech does not allow degrading remarks.

 

So back to your example, in Chicago I would have to practice free speech to contradict that view.

 

Free speech is not easy.

[Walddk]

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon.

But who is going to determine which signs are appropriate and which are not? The players, the captains, the coaches, the waitresses or the WBF Sign Approval Committee?

 

Roland

[helene_t]

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon.

But who is going to determine which signs are appropriate and which are not? The players, the captains, the coaches, the waitresses or the WBF Sign Approval Committee?

 

Roland

Roland, this question has just been answered so many times. See also Richard's posts.

[Echognome]

Just a talking point to those advocating no signs, which is, after all, a form of communication. Should we also impose that no acceptance speech is allowed? Or should we have rules about what is allowed to be said in such a speech?

 

I will reiterate my stance that the WBF can outline a Code of Conduct which might be vague or have gray areas, but which, if necessary, can be used as a basis for sanctions. Codes of Conduct are common enough that one wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel and it could be made a stipulation of accepting to play for your country.

 

When local customs dictate that a more stringent code be in place, the WBF can negotiate with the host authority when agreeing to hosting the event. Imagine that if one country felt that wearing shorts was inappropriate, how would such a consideration be handled? It seems that the WBF should negotiate such a proviso and if they find it workable, they can incorporate it into the Code of Conduct for that event. Zonal Organizations may impose further restrictions onto the Code of Conduct. Then the players can either choose to accept the Code of Conduct or not.

 

Given that Codes of Conduct are common enough in other sports, and are even used at the junior level in bridge, why is this such a difficult concept to fathom? By the way, I'm certainly not arguing that the Codes of Conduct be the same for the juniors and the open events, nor the same for each of the zones.

[ralph23]

May be right about Iran !! And yes, some European countries do have laws forbidding this kind of speech. Which is why I staged the event in Chicago, not Berlin.

 

But such speech is legal in the US, i.e. state and federal governments are constitutionallly barred from criminally punishing such speech.

 

So ... even though legal where made, are you saying then that it's NOT ok with you? Or that it is, since it's legal where made?

 

I guess I was confused as to your view.

It's not my view that is confused here.

 

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 

The European constitutions I'm familiar with guaranty the dignity of human beings and freedom of speech as constitutional rights. This way the freedom of speech does not allow degrading remarks.

 

So back to your example, in Chicago I would have to practice free speech to contradict that view.

 

Free speech is not easy.

No, it's certainly not easy. Not at all. How well I know !!

 

So -- I never did understand your view. (And I didn't say YOU were confused or your VIEW was confused, I said I was confused as to what your view was. As in, I didn't understand it.).

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm trying to ask what your view is. It's really a simple enough question.

 

So I'll ask again: I think you're now saying that you WOULD support some sanction or action against the maker of the pro-Hitler statement, yes?

 

Even though it is clearly legal -- i.e. violates no valid criminal law -- where made. And it's made by an American citizen, not a European. Robbie Fissure's never been outside the USA. He doesn't even watch BBC TV.

 

Because .... er.... it's illegal somewhere else?? Or maybe (gasp) just because it's wrong?

[ralph23]

I voted most signs are appropriate.  Anything I wouldn't get arrested for sticking on a sign I'd carry down to the Capitol or sticking on a T-shirt is fine.

Uh .... unless apparently such a sign criticized your buddies in Iran. Such an anti-Iran sign is clearly the work of US Imperialism and their lackeys, and should be ... er... "removed" I think was your word.

[ralph23]

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon.

But who is going to determine which signs are appropriate and which are not? The players, the captains, the coaches, the waitresses or the WBF Sign Approval Committee?

 

Roland

The waitresses, as long as they're not appearing nude like Michael Moore did at the Oscars.

[pclayton]

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

Good grief, nobody here is advocating the existence of such a committee, let alone insisting on getting a seat in such a committee for themselves.

 

If you can't follow all of this confusing debate, fair enough, I can't follow all of it either, but then just contribute your own POV instead of making up parodies of other posters' POV.

If you have no idea what this question is about, read this thread.

 

If you chose "some", please explain how to determine which signs are appropriate.

 

Anyone who is able to provide a good definition for "some" should surely be considered as a candidate for the soon to be created WBF Sign Approval Committee.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jikl]

Hrm, go away for 12 hours and there are 4 more pages on this thread.

 

In answer to Fred's followup question. I would say No to any political signs.

 

We have all agreed to some extent that this was a political sign.

 

Would we have the same opinion if someone was silly enough to hold up a sign saying "Free Tibet" at the recent VC award ceremony? Most of us would probably agree with the sentiment of the sign wholeheartedly. We would all condemn the person for being very brave but very stupid, and we would probably read with interest about all photos and video of the incident being confiscated. We would also be interested in the diplomatic pressures this might have created, this could have got into major press arenas, especially if a US citizen was detained because of it. Would the majority of us want to see that happen, no. If you do want this to happen, then you are in the "All" camp. For those in the all camp, would you want the US government having to approve all future representative bridge teams going overseas?

 

Anyway, just some hypotheticals.

 

Sean

[luke warm]

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon. See also Arend's post.

 

Frankly, I think Fred's position is utter absurd, but since I have a lot of respect for Fred I'm inclined to thinking that I have misunderstood his question. Quite possibly I still haven't understood what Fred means by "appropriate" in this context.

i think you understood everything just fine, helene... i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree? if you do, who defines it? if the ones displaying the signs, then it follows that those same people will think that *some* signs are inappropriate ... see? that means that the answer "some signs" has no meaning, or is the same as "all signs"

 

there is an internal inconsistency with that position, imo... and i still think those who said all signs (or even some signs, since the two are interchangeable) should be allowed are being dishonest (re: jon's iran diatribe)... there are signs they'd hate and want to disallow

[hotShot]

My view is that the freedom of speech is limited by the dignity of our fellow human beings, their right to live and the right to the integrity of the person.

 

I'm saying that the legal authorities have enough laws to enforce that.

 

You told me that the US constitution puts the freedom of speech higher than the dignity of other human beings. I did not know that. I expected that UN members in some form had to accept the "United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

 

I feel uncomfortable about this fact. And indeed if the laws fail to enforce basic human rights, I will have to get active myself and exercise my right of free speech to contradict such a statement.

[Echognome]

i think you understood everything just fine, helene... i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree? if you do, who defines it? if the ones displaying the signs, then it follows that those same people will think that *some* signs are inappropriate ... see? that means that the answer "some signs" has no meaning, or is the same as "all signs"

 

there is an internal inconsistency with that position, imo... and i still think those who said all signs (or even some signs, since the two are interchangeable) should be allowed are being dishonest (re: jon's iran diatribe)... there a signs they'd hate and want to disallow

See, you are arguing based on a contingency with which we do not hold agreement.

 

You are finding an inconsistency based on an "if" statement, where in particular, I'm referring to "if the ones displaying the signs..". This doesn't make any sense. You are building in the inconsistency by making this claim. Why would those that believe in some signs think that it would be a good idea that everyone determines their own level of appropriateness? That would lead to all signs. But that is not what anyone is arguing, so it's just a straw man.

 

You have to have an external group, committee, whatever determine what is appropriate. This is not impossible. I mentioned about that Codes of Conduct were already prevalent. This is common enough in employment. We have a booklet at work setting out one for us. Would it be a fair argument to say that if we believe their should be some restrictions on conduct that it means we think everyone should determine for themselves what's appropriate? Why no! The firm's lawyers and executives decide. Crazy!

[han]

By the way, I did not think it was necessary for me to be more explicit when I made up the questions for the poll. When I said "signs" I meant political signs big enough so that the audience would notice. When I said "apprropriate" I did not think it was necessary to qualify this with "on the podium at the award ceremony at a bridge World Championships". When I said "are", well you can ask Bill Clinton about what I meant by that :P

Well, maybe you should have. Apparently most posters understood "sign" as "sign" not as "political sign".

For some posters there is also a difference between "not appropriate" and "needs to be sanctioned/punished by the WBF/USBF when it happens". They way I understand you, there is none for you.

I believe you, but to me it also sounds like some of the posters who tried to pick apart the words of my question know perfectly well what I was asking - they were simply trying to avoid having to back down from their earlier positions by providing the only sensible answer to the question I asked.

This poll was obviously motivated by a discussion Roland started in the other thread. In that other thread Roland said that no signs were appropriate even a sign to their mum. And when I asked him if he really meant no signs he confirmed this, no signs at all.

 

Now you claim that obviously you meant political signs, why should that be obvious?

 

And again you make it sound like I was trying to avoid the question. I assume you consider me as one of the people who were trying to avoid the question since you answered to my question with hilarious sarcasm. Turns out I asked the wrong question, instead of asking what you meant by "appropriate", I should have asked what you meant by "sign"!

 

I clearly answered your question by saying that, no, I don't think the award ceremony is the right place for a political sign, and no, I don't think that this necessarily means these ladies should be punished.

 

It seems to me that instead you have instead slightly changed position during this discussion. In your first post you said you were not upset and that you found it in fact amusing. Now it seems like this subject is of great importance to you, even starting your own poll in the watercooler (which I don't recall you have ever done). Has your position changed because you have now given it more thought, or because there has been such a fierce discussion that you are trying to "win"?

[Codo]

During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, should a player who is receiving his or her medal on the podium display a politically-oriented sign that is big enough for the audience to read?

 

- No

- Depends on the words on the sign

- Yes

Hi Fred,

 

I am a bid late to the show, but I join the "some" camp.

I know that this camp has a problem in deciding what is allowed and what is forbidden. But you have the problem where to take the borderline anyway:

 

If you allow "all sings", is it still allowed to write something about other countries? We had the question whether "free Tibet" is allowed or not. And a second problem: Where does the bad taste start? We did not vote for Bush? We hate Bush? Bush is an A....e? Somewhere there must be a border.

 

If you allow "no signs" and say: No written posters big enough to read. Okay, seems easy. What about photos showing f.e. Norwegian ships killing whale babies?

Surely this is forbidden too? What if you wear green belts and green belts are the sign for the Residence in Absurdistan? What if you burn the German flag as a protest against our regime? What if you wave a flag with "God bless America!"

What about a poster with chinese/persian or russian letters? This can be art for you and me but maybe it contents messages we just cannot read?

 

My point is: You have to define the borderline in any case, no matter if you say all, none or some signs. And there will always be a grey area. But you cannot stop it. Life is living ain a grey arera and that is okay.

 

I am in the "some" camp, because sometimes people need a theatre to show the world some real problems, because the world ignores these. So I had respect if someone shows a poster at the price giving ceremony like: Help Durfar! Or Freedom for Mandela! Stop Hitler!

 

The picture from mexico 68 with the two 200 meter runners is still in my head. So they at least showed some peoples that there is a problem in the US. I am not the judge whether they served their country and/or at least the coloured people with their gesture, but at least they started some discussions.

[kenberg]

Obviously I should stop posting and get a life but here I am again.

 

Many of the hypothetical signs are far fetched (Nuke Norway). Try this: The US Senate recently reported out of committee a resolution condemning Turkey for its actions, or rather the Ottoman Empire's actions, against Armenians in the early part of the previous century. Never mind what my views are on this. It seems very possible someone with strong feelings could weigh in on this with signs at some awards ceremony somewhere. This is something I really hope does not happen in bridge. The Bush thing, I believe, was intended as a bit of a prank. Hardly a big deal since joking about presidents is a national pastime here. I can well imagine, although it didn't happen, a VC winner of a few years back displaying a sign saying "I did not have sex with that man". A joke. But the resolution about Turkey is a serious matter.

 

I would like to think that players, whatever their feelings on it, would not turn an awards ceremony into a propaganda event. This has not happened before, and as far as I am concerned it really still hasn't happened, and I sincerely hope that this remains the case. Whatever view is expressed, no doubt some in the audience would feel entitled to strongly speak for the other side of the issue. The obligation to sit quietly expires when the awards ceremony is changed into a propaganda event. And then where are we?

 

 

 

Really, I feel so far, so good. No doubt many players have read all of our brilliant comments and will take to heart the reasons for asking for restraint. Go pick a fight somewhere else.