Jump to content


Nebraska's Michael Rose-Ivey receives racial backlash for anthem protest


Recommended Posts


http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17644850/nebraska-cornhuskers-lb-michael-rose-ivey-receives-racial-backlash-anthem-protest

 

 

Just when I thought I could watch college football in peace. The Nebraska Cornhuskers do not need to get publicity like this. IMHO.

 

The unfortunate aspect of this article and these protest is that it creates an image for the profile of a husker fan, and that image is not good.

 

Husker fans are racist, biggoted a$$hole$ who attack their players.

 

We all know that is not a good representation of our fan-base. Attacking stereotypes with more stereotypes doesn't seem to be the answer.

  • Fire 5
Link to comment

Tabloid Journalism -

 

The title of the article and paragraph 3 are the car crash everyone is slowing down for. I'd love for him to expose the scumbag that sent him this information and we could really see where people stand on this issue.

 

You get to go to the last sentence to read "he's received "way more positive" feedback from Husker fans than negative since the protest."

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

I see that the other thread got moved to the 'Politics & Religion' forum. I think it (or this thread) should be left right here in the football forum. As a reminder of the issues at hand because after reading a few posts in both of these threads it's obvious that the message has not sunk in yet for some people. That racism still exists and as sad as it was to hear it's still being felt by some of our current players. Guys like Michael Rose-Ivey who is now undoubtedly not just my favorite defensive player but my favorite player on the entire team.

 

I'm just sorry that he's still had to endure the racisim and bigotry even from some Husker fans themselves. We are proud of guys like Brook Berringer, Tom Osborne and Sam Foltz. For me anyway you can add Michael Rose-Ivey to that list. As for those Husker fans who have asked that MRI be 'lynched' and called him the N word I pray for you because as it stands now the Lord has a very special place for you when it's all said and done.

  • Fire 9
Link to comment

 

 

So saying he should be murdered and not standing for a song are equal?

 

I'm saying he exercised his right of free speech, somebody else is exercising theirs. Don't kick a hornet's nest if you don't like being stung, if indeed he did receive any texts as he described.
Threats of physical violence are not protected under the right of free speech.

Tweet Obama, or Ben Sasse or governor and tell them you won't stand for the anthem, and another saying they should be lynched. Then when the PD shows up hide behind the 1st amendment, let me know how that goes

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

Maybe Rose-Ivey should just stick to football while he is in a Cornhusker uniform.

 

I also find it ironic that he was all for free speech and making a statement about what he thinks needs to be said until his Twitter account blew up. Then he thinks everybody else should be careful not to offend his mother...yet how many mothers did he offend in the stands?

So saying he should be murdered and not standing for a song are equal?

 

Man, people are idiotic, especially when they are protected by anonymity. Yes. MRI is going to be a target of hate. But as a supportive husker fan, I can not appologize for these people, as I have no influence over them. The only thing I can do is encourage him. I respect his right to protest. I see nothing wrong with what he did. I encourage him to ignore the hate. The world is full of bad people and the more interactions you have, the more likely you'll run into them. And yes, challenging these groups is going to have them come out in droves.

 

With that said, I think he should be careful about the message that he conveys. It feels like he is creating stereotypes with his statements, which is counter-intuitive.

Link to comment

One of these two things is not protected under the 1st Amendment and is not allowed in our country as 'free speech'.

 

I'd have to see where you get this. Making terroristic threats or inciting riots are the only two "speech crimes" of which I am aware.

 

I just looked up some Supreme Court cases before this post, but feel free to double check.

 

"It requires specificity, it requires intent, and it requires a sense of imminence." is how one law professor makes the distinction.

 

Again, can't we just get football with our football? If not, then I guess the floodgates are opened. :dunno

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...