Ryan Hartman Match Penalty for "Attempt to Injure" on Tim Stützle
- Thread starter Sun God Nika
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Grigowski
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2016
- 3,540
- 4,518
With Hartman´s history, i am going with at least 10 games..... What an idiot.
The NHL isn't a governmental agency.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 28,055
- 14,961
Imagine being the only poster defending Hartman for this action , you’ll of embarrassed yourself when the suspension comes down.
Boy I wish the NHL would've taken it this seriously when Jamie Benn almost broke Dylan Larkin's neck and then f***ed up Shane Pinto doing the same damn thing.
Jovavic
boohoo, Pens "fans", BOOHOO
Parros told Hartman to come in for the hearing so he could high five him behind closed doors
TheGreenTBer
Paula Dean does bath salts
- Apr 30, 2021
- 10,207
- 12,508
Freedom of speech does not apply to private enterprise.
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 9,016
- 3,153
You'd be surprised on how many Americans don't understand what the First Amendment actually is.
"I cAn SaY wHaTeVeR i WaNt WiThOuT aNy RePuRcuSsIoNs!"
Errr...no. That's not what they First Amendment is/says.
TheGreenTBer
Paula Dean does bath salts
- Apr 30, 2021
- 10,207
- 12,508
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Some of these Arenas are public property. That could conceivably muddy the waters to some degree. Although it's unlikely to remove the restrictions on a player being penalized.
The only public Professional arena I know about in the US is Lambeau Field, as that is publicy owned. I still may be incorrect with that as well.
A company can do whatever they want to do as long as they don't break any laws (which includes discrimination based on protected classes). People who flip people off isn't a protected class. As with everything, there is nuance.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Silky Johnson
I wish you all the bad things in life.
I
WTF? What he said was not analogous to that at all.
@Dr Jan Itor pointed out (correctly) that two of supplenary disciplines were not for player safety things but then conceded that it was still too much.
Why the reference to racism? Are you trying to take the high ground through unjustified ad hominem attack? Do you realise that you come of like a bit of a dick when you attack people like that for no reason?
WTF? What he said was not analogous to that at all.
@Dr Jan Itor pointed out (correctly) that two of supplenary disciplines were not for player safety things but then conceded that it was still too much.
Why the reference to racism? Are you trying to take the high ground through unjustified ad hominem attack? Do you realise that you come of like a bit of a dick when you attack people like that for no reason?
Some people dont understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of consequences.
Mr Kot
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2022
- 5,994
- 14,041
Some priests are learning this the hard way after doing the Elon salute this week haha
Silky Johnson
I wish you all the bad things in life.
That's what I saw too. They both were off balance & then he used the back of Stutzle's head and his forearm to try and rebalance both of them but Stutzle slipped and dragged them both down.
Unfortunately Stutzle was injured despite Hartman's herulean attempt to save both of them.
Really, he is a hero.
...mentally, yup; always has been...
...you should have been McSorley's lawyer:
"Mr. McSorley saw a bumblebee on Mr. Brashear's head, Your Honor, and knowing of Mr. Brashear's bumblebee allergy, was simply attempting to swat it away before Mr. Brashear was stung and went into Anaphylactic Shock...he should be considered a Hero, Your Honor, for attempting to save the life of a fellow player!"
Silky Johnson
I wish you all the bad things in life.
Yup.
First ammendment says:
"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."
And several court cases have affirmed that displaying the middle finger, commonly known as "flipping the bird," is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Notable cases include:
Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard (2019): In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a Michigan woman was engaging in constitutionally protected free speech when she made a crude hand gesture toward a police officer. The court held that the officer violated her First Amendment rights by stopping her a second time and issuing a more severe ticket in response to the gesture.
Duran v. City of Douglas (1990): The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an individual's profane gestures and words directed at police officers were protected speech under the First Amendment. The court emphasized that while the individual's behavior was offensive, it was not illegal, and criticism of the police is not a crime.
Nichols v. Chacon (2000): A federal district court found that displaying one's middle finger to a police officer constituted expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court noted that while the gesture was crude and offensive, it was not obscene under relevant Supreme Court precedent and did not constitute "fighting words."
These cases collectively reinforce the principle that non-threatening, expressive gestures, even if offensive, are protected under the First Amendment.
However, THE NHL IS NOT CONGRESS!
And while the First Amendment protects certain expressive conduct, such as displaying the middle finger, from government interference, this protection does not extend to private workplaces or private property. Private employers and property owners have the authority to set and enforce their own codes of conduct, and the First Amendment does not constrain their actions in the same way it does governmental entities.
In the workplace, employers can implement policies that prohibit offensive gestures or language. Engaging in such conduct can lead to disciplinary actions, including termination, without infringing upon First Amendment rights, as these protections do not apply to private employers. For instance, in the case of Radwan v. Manuel (2022), a college soccer player was dismissed from the team after making a middle-finger gesture during a televised event. The court's decision highlighted the limitations of First Amendment protections within institutional settings, emphasizing that such protections are not absolute and can be outweighed by the institution's interest in maintaining decorum and discipline.
Similarly, on private property, owners can establish rules governing behavior. Expressive conduct deemed inappropriate or disruptive can be restricted, and individuals who violate these rules may be asked to leave or face other consequences. The First Amendment does not grant individuals the right to engage in expressive conduct on private property against the owner's wishes.
It's important to note that while the First Amendment restricts government actions, it does not impose limitations on private individuals or entities. Therefore, behaviors like giving the middle finger may be protected from government sanction but are not shielded from repercussions in private settings.
Moreover, the NHL and NHLPA have a CBA that governs the players code of conduct, which Hartman violated.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Beanpot Boston University vs Harvard - TD Garden, BostonWagers: 8Staked: $19,656.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Beanpot Boston College vs Northeastern - TD Garden, BostonWagers: 4Staked: $657.00Event closes- Updated: