Let me preface this by saying that I voted for Barrack Obama in 2008, and I intend to vote for him again in 2012 as of right now. That's not to say that I buy into 100% of what he stands for, or that I'm against 100% of what the other side says. Having said that, Orioles' outfielder Luke Scott obviously feels differently. Last December Scott made some comments to the effect that he didn't believe that Obama was born in the United States. Scott also advocates second ammendment rights; in other words it's safe to say that he's not a leftist.
According to the Baltimore Sun, Scott sat for an interview this week with ESPN's Amy K. Nelson, in which he reiterated his opinions on our President. (Incidentally, the Orioles distanced themselves from the comments the first time around.) First off, the US Constitution states that a person must be born in the United States in order to be President. Obama was born in Hawaii, which last time I checked was a state. However that aside, one would think that both political parties would have manners by which they vet all candidates in that sense before they allow them to formally run on their ticket. There has always been a movement by the far right in this country to try to say that President Obama was born overseas. Obviously Luke Scott falls into this category.
Here's the second thing, and this might surprise you; I don't have a problem with what Luke Scott said. I certainly disagree with it, however he didn't do anything illegal, immoral, or even wrong. He simply stated his opinion as he felt it. The last time I checked, we're guaranteed freedom of speech in America so long as it doesn't pose a clear and present danger to society (the best example of which is you can't yell fire! in a movie theatre). What Scott said is in poor taste, and is also infactual. It might even make him come across as somewhat uneducated. However he's well within his right to express his opinion if he so chooses.
I get the whole concept that "public figures" (such as athletes) should keep their political opinions to themselves. However are they not also Americans guaranteed the same protections under the US Constitution that all of us "private figures" get? Having said that, it's also the right of fans to cease to support athletes with whom they might disagree personally. But if you do that, aren't you indirectly expressing your opinion (the opposite opinion) on the same issue, and thus hating on the athlete in question for doing the same thing? I'm a Luke Scott fan because I like how he plays ball, and I'll continue to be a Luke Scott fan. I don't agree with his opinion of our President, however I can look past that. I have a real problem with society and worse yet companies/organizations trying to censor people who have outlandish opinions. If Scott was advocating physical violence against President Obama or anything along those lines, I would definitely say that there was a problem with that (again, clear and present danger). However he didn't say anything of the sort.
My point is that freedom of speech is not limited to speech that's in good taste or popular. There are plenty of people in both parties of whom I'm not particularly fond, however I respect everyone that runs for public office. Part of what makes America great is that freedom of expression...and another thing that makes her so great is baseball! So while I personally don't agree with Luke Scott in this case, I would ask the citizens of Birdland not to be too harsh on him for doing something that is guaranteed to him in the constitution. I would also say that those who try to limit the rights of others are calling bad moxie upon themselves in various ways. We've all heard stories about people who are told at work to vote in certain ways, or who are asked to remove political bumper stickers from their cars lest they jeapordize their jobs. That's not the America that I know and love. It's corporate America, where everything is over sanitized and sensitized. Again, that's not the America that I know and love. If Luke Scott and I discussed this topic, we would disagree. But for my money it would be a conversation conducted with civility and a certain amount of mutual respect. That's the America that I know and love.
Written by:
