[slide]

Gruden removed from ring of honor at Tampa stadium

also, NFL said it would not release the non-Gruden 654,000+ emails.  Commissioner probably thinks his purpose has been served with the targeted email leaks.

[slide]

Gruden removed from ring of honor at Tampa stadium

also, NFL said it would not release the non-Gruden 654,000+ emails.  Commissioner probably thinks his purpose has been served with the targeted email leaks.

[BostonCard]

Gruden removed from ring of honor at Tampa stadium

also, NFL said it would not release the non-Gruden 654,000+ emails.  Commissioner probably thinks his purpose has been served with the targeted email leaks.

As noted in this thread, it might be in the hands of a court.

BC

[BostonCard]

Gruden removed from ring of honor at Tampa stadium

also, NFL said it would not release the non-Gruden 654,000+ emails.  Commissioner probably thinks his purpose has been served with the targeted email leaks.

As noted in this thread, it might be in the hands of a court.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

This isn't directly related to Gruden fiasco, but the fact the NFLPA is requesting the 650k emails sets up a dynamic that should get the NFLPA to seriously regret and re-think its stupid decision to approve the TEN YEAR CBA it voted on last year.

Because if the NFL won't release the emails to the NFLPA, it will show the players the owners can't be trusted and the stage will be set for the kind of distrust between NFL owners and players that exists between MLB owners and players. You can't have any relationship without trust. Perhaps the NFL will agree to NFLPA demands under certain conditions, but it doesn't, every negotiation between the owners and players will start with the NFLPA saying "until we se those emails, we don't trust you" or "we don't trust you because you didn't share those emails."

[OutsiderFan]

This isn't directly related to Gruden fiasco, but the fact the NFLPA is requesting the 650k emails sets up a dynamic that should get the NFLPA to seriously regret and re-think its stupid decision to approve the TEN YEAR CBA it voted on last year.

Because if the NFL won't release the emails to the NFLPA, it will show the players the owners can't be trusted and the stage will be set for the kind of distrust between NFL owners and players that exists between MLB owners and players. You can't have any relationship without trust. Perhaps the NFL will agree to NFLPA demands under certain conditions, but it doesn't, every negotiation between the owners and players will start with the NFLPA saying "until we se those emails, we don't trust you" or "we don't trust you because you didn't share those emails."

[BostonCard]

Interesting that many of the emails were already part of a court filing:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...tball-team

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting that many of the emails were already part of a court filing:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...tball-team

BC

[teejers1]

Interesting that many of the emails were already part of a court filing:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...tball-team

BC

Was this same court filing (or case) the one where Adam Schefter revealed his "journalistic integrity?"
For some reason, that guy strikes me as obsequious and two-faced and faux- . . . everything, really.

P.S.  The NFL's selective leak of emails is an egregious example of targeting.  No one cares because Gruden is getting his just desserts; but really, how many other people - NFL head office employees, owners, team employees, media personnel, etc. - would be shown in a similarly unflattering light and subject to public punishment and cancellation?  I bet more than 5 . . . perhaps significantly more.  [If there were none, then why not release the documents?].  But the NFL is not going to release the remainder of the documents, and I don't see how they can be forced to do so.  Regardless, this much is clear:  the leakers (assuming out of the NFL office) have ZERO integrity and are human excrement, as far as I'm concerned.  I hope karmic retribution hits them hard.

[teejers1]

Interesting that many of the emails were already part of a court filing:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...tball-team

BC

Was this same court filing (or case) the one where Adam Schefter revealed his "journalistic integrity?"
For some reason, that guy strikes me as obsequious and two-faced and faux- . . . everything, really.

P.S.  The NFL's selective leak of emails is an egregious example of targeting.  No one cares because Gruden is getting his just desserts; but really, how many other people - NFL head office employees, owners, team employees, media personnel, etc. - would be shown in a similarly unflattering light and subject to public punishment and cancellation?  I bet more than 5 . . . perhaps significantly more.  [If there were none, then why not release the documents?].  But the NFL is not going to release the remainder of the documents, and I don't see how they can be forced to do so.  Regardless, this much is clear:  the leakers (assuming out of the NFL office) have ZERO integrity and are human excrement, as far as I'm concerned.  I hope karmic retribution hits them hard.

[needle]

Am I the only one who feels like people have lost their minds demanding that all these emails be released?

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers. Organizations that aren't public entities generally can't have guns forced to their heads by regulators or even the courts forcing all their tradecraft to be made public (my slightly exaggerated description of 650,000 emails) if they do something wrong, even if that something wrong is pretty egregious.

The NFL is not really an impartial regulator, but in this scenario they played the role of investigator/regulator looking into the Washington Football Team. 

Now, the NFL could potentially broaden the scope of its inquiry, which may or may not be appropriate. Everyone has a theory, but I would guess that someone in power decided not to, and someone with just enough info decided to leak the Gruden stuff to the media.

[needle]

Am I the only one who feels like people have lost their minds demanding that all these emails be released?

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers. Organizations that aren't public entities generally can't have guns forced to their heads by regulators or even the courts forcing all their tradecraft to be made public (my slightly exaggerated description of 650,000 emails) if they do something wrong, even if that something wrong is pretty egregious.

The NFL is not really an impartial regulator, but in this scenario they played the role of investigator/regulator looking into the Washington Football Team. 

Now, the NFL could potentially broaden the scope of its inquiry, which may or may not be appropriate. Everyone has a theory, but I would guess that someone in power decided not to, and someone with just enough info decided to leak the Gruden stuff to the media.

[teejers1]

Am I the only one who feels like people have lost their minds demanding that all these emails be released?

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers. Organizations that aren't public entities generally can't have guns forced to their heads by regulators or even the courts forcing all their tradecraft to be made public (my slightly exaggerated description of 650,000 emails) if they do something wrong, even if that something wrong is pretty egregious.

The NFL is not really an impartial regulator, but in this scenario they played the role of investigator/regulator looking into the Washington Football Team. 

Now, the NFL could potentially broaden the scope of its inquiry, which may or may not be appropriate. Everyone has a theory, but I would guess that someone in power decided not to, and someone with just enough info decided to leak the Gruden stuff to the media.

But on what basis did the NFL deem it necessary or wise to share just these emails?  They're not even connected to the WFT investigation . . . are they?  So, it's akin to some employee at a cloud provider with access to your emails rummaging through every one of them, finding the ones that are most embarrassing/cringeworthy/outrageous/what have you, and then just giving them to your employer and the NYT/WSJ, with hope and expectation that you'll get $hitcanned.  

Doesn't that scenario strike you as . . . I don't know . . . arbitrary and unfair?

Again, I try to find the principal being advanced/defended in these public issues.

P.S.  I'd settle for the leaker being publicly named and fired.  That strikes me as karmic justice.  Of course, that person could well be acting on direction of the Commissioner . . . so what are the chances of that righteous thing happening?

[teejers1]

Am I the only one who feels like people have lost their minds demanding that all these emails be released?

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers. Organizations that aren't public entities generally can't have guns forced to their heads by regulators or even the courts forcing all their tradecraft to be made public (my slightly exaggerated description of 650,000 emails) if they do something wrong, even if that something wrong is pretty egregious.

The NFL is not really an impartial regulator, but in this scenario they played the role of investigator/regulator looking into the Washington Football Team. 

Now, the NFL could potentially broaden the scope of its inquiry, which may or may not be appropriate. Everyone has a theory, but I would guess that someone in power decided not to, and someone with just enough info decided to leak the Gruden stuff to the media.

But on what basis did the NFL deem it necessary or wise to share just these emails?  They're not even connected to the WFT investigation . . . are they?  So, it's akin to some employee at a cloud provider with access to your emails rummaging through every one of them, finding the ones that are most embarrassing/cringeworthy/outrageous/what have you, and then just giving them to your employer and the NYT/WSJ, with hope and expectation that you'll get $hitcanned.  

Doesn't that scenario strike you as . . . I don't know . . . arbitrary and unfair?

Again, I try to find the principal being advanced/defended in these public issues.

P.S.  I'd settle for the leaker being publicly named and fired.  That strikes me as karmic justice.  Of course, that person could well be acting on direction of the Commissioner . . . so what are the chances of that righteous thing happening?

[gailtate]

Am I the only one who feels like people have lost their minds demanding that all these emails be released?

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers. Organizations that aren't public entities generally can't have guns forced to their heads by regulators or even the courts forcing all their tradecraft to be made public (my slightly exaggerated description of 650,000 emails) if they do something wrong, even if that something wrong is pretty egregious.

The NFL is not really an impartial regulator, but in this scenario they played the role of investigator/regulator looking into the Washington Football Team. 

Now, the NFL could potentially broaden the scope of its inquiry, which may or may not be appropriate. Everyone has a theory, but I would guess that someone in power decided not to, and someone with just enough info decided to leak the Gruden stuff to the media.

But on what basis did the NFL deem it necessary or wise to share just these emails?  They're not even connected to the WFT investigation . . . are they?  So, it's akin to some employee at a cloud provider with access to your emails rummaging through every one of them, finding the ones that are most embarrassing/cringeworthy/outrageous/what have you, and then just giving them to your employer and the NYT/WSJ, with hope and expectation that you'll get $hitcanned.  

Doesn't that scenario strike you as . . . I don't know . . . arbitrary and unfair?

Again, I try to find the principal being advanced/defended in these public issues.

P.S.  I'd settle for the leaker being publicly named and fired.  That strikes me as karmic justice.  Of course, that person could well be acting on direction of the Commissioner . . . so what are the chances of that righteous thing happening?

This thing has Goodell's scent all over it.

[gailtate]

Am I the only one who feels like people have lost their minds demanding that all these emails be released?

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers. Organizations that aren't public entities generally can't have guns forced to their heads by regulators or even the courts forcing all their tradecraft to be made public (my slightly exaggerated description of 650,000 emails) if they do something wrong, even if that something wrong is pretty egregious.

The NFL is not really an impartial regulator, but in this scenario they played the role of investigator/regulator looking into the Washington Football Team. 

Now, the NFL could potentially broaden the scope of its inquiry, which may or may not be appropriate. Everyone has a theory, but I would guess that someone in power decided not to, and someone with just enough info decided to leak the Gruden stuff to the media.

But on what basis did the NFL deem it necessary or wise to share just these emails?  They're not even connected to the WFT investigation . . . are they?  So, it's akin to some employee at a cloud provider with access to your emails rummaging through every one of them, finding the ones that are most embarrassing/cringeworthy/outrageous/what have you, and then just giving them to your employer and the NYT/WSJ, with hope and expectation that you'll get $hitcanned.  

Doesn't that scenario strike you as . . . I don't know . . . arbitrary and unfair?

Again, I try to find the principal being advanced/defended in these public issues.

P.S.  I'd settle for the leaker being publicly named and fired.  That strikes me as karmic justice.  Of course, that person could well be acting on direction of the Commissioner . . . so what are the chances of that righteous thing happening?

This thing has Goodell's scent all over it.

[OutsiderFan]

The issue for me - and I might add the NFLPA - is seeing how sincere the NFL is with its "stop hate" and "everyone is welcome" campaigns as it attempts to brand itself as inclusive and friendly to all.

The cynics will say of course all that do good in the community, NFL cares stuff is just PR and the owners don't really care about anyone but themselves.  But there are a lot of people who might to hold the league in higher esteem and be inclined to be a customer post all that social awareness stuff, and wouldn't be if those emails revealed attitudes that make it clear many people in the NFL are monsters.

Of course, one could argue my desire for truth doesn't override someone else's right to privacy, and be correct. This is similar to the debate about desire to know injury and Covid status of college athletes vs. their right to privacy as amateurs.

All this said, the sheer number of people who want to see the truth is going to create a situation where just throwing Gruden to the wolves isn't going to be enough to satiate the appetite for truth from the WFT investigation. While that truth is withheld, given the Gruden exposure, I will now think less of the NFL than I did after it seemed to make progress on issues important to players.  Color me quite skeptical until the NFL comes clean.

[OutsiderFan]

The issue for me - and I might add the NFLPA - is seeing how sincere the NFL is with its "stop hate" and "everyone is welcome" campaigns as it attempts to brand itself as inclusive and friendly to all.

The cynics will say of course all that do good in the community, NFL cares stuff is just PR and the owners don't really care about anyone but themselves.  But there are a lot of people who might to hold the league in higher esteem and be inclined to be a customer post all that social awareness stuff, and wouldn't be if those emails revealed attitudes that make it clear many people in the NFL are monsters.

Of course, one could argue my desire for truth doesn't override someone else's right to privacy, and be correct. This is similar to the debate about desire to know injury and Covid status of college athletes vs. their right to privacy as amateurs.

All this said, the sheer number of people who want to see the truth is going to create a situation where just throwing Gruden to the wolves isn't going to be enough to satiate the appetite for truth from the WFT investigation. While that truth is withheld, given the Gruden exposure, I will now think less of the NFL than I did after it seemed to make progress on issues important to players.  Color me quite skeptical until the NFL comes clean.

[BostonCard]

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers.

It's a good thing then that all the stadiums they play in is completely financed by the owners... not.  Or that the league is completely immune from antitrust law... not (it doesn't have a blanket exemption like baseball, but it does have some antitrust provisions).

I'm not saying that those things mean that the NFL should be an open book.  How much of those emails should be released is up to a judge, and probably needs to be relevant to some kind of legal action.

BC

[BostonCard]

NFL teams aren't public entities supported by taxpayers.

It's a good thing then that all the stadiums they play in is completely financed by the owners... not.  Or that the league is completely immune from antitrust law... not (it doesn't have a blanket exemption like baseball, but it does have some antitrust provisions).

I'm not saying that those things mean that the NFL should be an open book.  How much of those emails should be released is up to a judge, and probably needs to be relevant to some kind of legal action.

BC

[dabigv13]

Goodell leaked it because Gruden called him a clueless antifootball pussy (and he was right). I'm sure Goodell has maneuvered some plausible deniability for himself but obviously this leak is his doing.

[dabigv13]

Goodell leaked it because Gruden called him a clueless antifootball pussy (and he was right). I'm sure Goodell has maneuvered some plausible deniability for himself but obviously this leak is his doing.

[BostonCard]

Goodell leaked it because Gruden called him a clueless antifootball pussy (and he was right). I'm sure Goodell has maneuvered some plausible deniability for himself but obviously this leak is his doing.

Gruden insulted a lot of people who had access to the transcripts.  Lots of people with motive.  But yeah, Goodell would be at the top of the list.

BC

[BostonCard]

Goodell leaked it because Gruden called him a clueless antifootball pussy (and he was right). I'm sure Goodell has maneuvered some plausible deniability for himself but obviously this leak is his doing.

Gruden insulted a lot of people who had access to the transcripts.  Lots of people with motive.  But yeah, Goodell would be at the top of the list.

BC

[Goose]

This may approach the Terry rule in the minds of some, but the real question comes down to what expectation of privacy an email confers on those who sent it and those who receive it. We do know for example that emails sent to/by government are often, but not always, available via FOIA lawsuits. Other emails have different levels of privacy attached to them, but these levels are a bit undefined. The problem of third parties disclosing emails that they  possess electronically or in hard copy cannot, IMHO, be solved. The only realistic and fully effective solution is to admit there is NO expectation of privacy. Whatever you say in an email is public. If you want to say something in an email that you do not want to be public, encrypt the email. The recipients who can decode the email are now responsible for its physical security. They know it is sensitive or else you wouldn't have encrypted it. Third parties can't leak/use/reveal it because they can't read it. No other solution really works.
Realistically, anything that goes over the internet passes through the "hands" of many other people. Most things that are transmitted electronically even on a private LAN have the same problem. At a minimum, the IT folks can access it all. Some of those people may intercept and divulge what was transmitted. You  may not even know/can't prove who did it. Even if you do, they may be outside of your jurisdiction and not subject to legal sanction. On top of that, it is often true that somebody knowing what an email contains may allow them to damage you without making the email public. They can act on what they know without revealing anything at all about how they know it. Given that, you just have to realize it is public and behave accordingly.

[Goose]

This may approach the Terry rule in the minds of some, but the real question comes down to what expectation of privacy an email confers on those who sent it and those who receive it. We do know for example that emails sent to/by government are often, but not always, available via FOIA lawsuits. Other emails have different levels of privacy attached to them, but these levels are a bit undefined. The problem of third parties disclosing emails that they  possess electronically or in hard copy cannot, IMHO, be solved. The only realistic and fully effective solution is to admit there is NO expectation of privacy. Whatever you say in an email is public. If you want to say something in an email that you do not want to be public, encrypt the email. The recipients who can decode the email are now responsible for its physical security. They know it is sensitive or else you wouldn't have encrypted it. Third parties can't leak/use/reveal it because they can't read it. No other solution really works.
Realistically, anything that goes over the internet passes through the "hands" of many other people. Most things that are transmitted electronically even on a private LAN have the same problem. At a minimum, the IT folks can access it all. Some of those people may intercept and divulge what was transmitted. You  may not even know/can't prove who did it. Even if you do, they may be outside of your jurisdiction and not subject to legal sanction. On top of that, it is often true that somebody knowing what an email contains may allow them to damage you without making the email public. They can act on what they know without revealing anything at all about how they know it. Given that, you just have to realize it is public and behave accordingly.

[BostonCard]

Good article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...74f24220a2

The NFL is full of John Grudens; he made the mistake of putting it in writing.  Like, if we knew about it, how many coaches/owners/etc. would still have their jobs.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...74f24220a2

The NFL is full of John Grudens; he made the mistake of putting it in writing.  Like, if we knew about it, how many coaches/owners/etc. would still have their jobs.

BC

[lex24]

Good article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...74f24220a2

The NFL is full of John Grudens; he made the mistake of putting it in writing.  Like, if we knew about it, how many coaches/owners/etc. would still have their jobs.

BC

Maybe.  I suspect the NFL is also full of good people that do not fit the stereotype that the author advances.  But today it is necessary to always look for and advance the negative. 

 I don’t like Gruden. Always thought the Chuckie bit was silly.  And that he was overrated. But he has a long record as a coach.  How did he treat and interact with his players, most of whom are AA over the years?  Has there been any indication that he had racist tendencies?  Did any player complain of his treatment?

He’s a football coach.  What do you think the daily banter is in the locker room?  Do you think the players are discussing quantum physics?  Or there last viewing of a Lifetime movie with their honey?  How many times a day do you think the P word gets thrown out in the locker room. Or other slurs? These are a collection of alpha males that make their living physically pounding on their opponents. Trash talking is commonplace. Part of the culture. What Incognito did to Martin for example is, I suspect, rare not for the razzing, but for the reaction.

Grudens comments are crude, insensitive,  etc. But they don’t define him. 

It is, of course, right and good to be doing what we can to make our discourse more civil.  And to make it clear that it’s not all right to speak in bigoted terms. But it’s somewhat disturbing, at least to me, that there is this tendency to reach back years, find dirt, and use it to destroy people.  There is something quasi-McCarthyesque about it to me.

Also, how many of you can look in the mirror and say that you have never said, done or written things that in hindsight (thankfully with today’s more enlightened attitudes) you at the least wish you hadn’t said or done.  If there are any of you that can do that - well, congratulations (or your kidding yourselves)

Gruden was a football coach. I’m not surprised by his words.  That’s the world he inhabits. But again do his actions over his career matter.  Or have we reached a point where anyone can reach into our past, look for our frailties and burn us with them.


I don’t care much what happens to Gruden.  But I do think we need to think about how to deal with the past sins of people as reflected in their comments.  Does that mean automatic disqualification?  Or does that persons record - as shown by his or her actions count?  And is forgiveness still a part of our ethos?  Or are we just out to destroy.

We are all biased in one form or another. Hopefully we search for our Better Angels to weed out that bias.  In the end trying to treat others how we want to be treated is the easy answer.  Harder in reality to do.  We are, after all human…..

If this violates the Terry Rule, my apology.

[lex24]

Good article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...74f24220a2

The NFL is full of John Grudens; he made the mistake of putting it in writing.  Like, if we knew about it, how many coaches/owners/etc. would still have their jobs.

BC

Maybe.  I suspect the NFL is also full of good people that do not fit the stereotype that the author advances.  But today it is necessary to always look for and advance the negative. 

 I don’t like Gruden. Always thought the Chuckie bit was silly.  And that he was overrated. But he has a long record as a coach.  How did he treat and interact with his players, most of whom are AA over the years?  Has there been any indication that he had racist tendencies?  Did any player complain of his treatment?

He’s a football coach.  What do you think the daily banter is in the locker room?  Do you think the players are discussing quantum physics?  Or there last viewing of a Lifetime movie with their honey?  How many times a day do you think the P word gets thrown out in the locker room. Or other slurs? These are a collection of alpha males that make their living physically pounding on their opponents. Trash talking is commonplace. Part of the culture. What Incognito did to Martin for example is, I suspect, rare not for the razzing, but for the reaction.

Grudens comments are crude, insensitive,  etc. But they don’t define him. 

It is, of course, right and good to be doing what we can to make our discourse more civil.  And to make it clear that it’s not all right to speak in bigoted terms. But it’s somewhat disturbing, at least to me, that there is this tendency to reach back years, find dirt, and use it to destroy people.  There is something quasi-McCarthyesque about it to me.

Also, how many of you can look in the mirror and say that you have never said, done or written things that in hindsight (thankfully with today’s more enlightened attitudes) you at the least wish you hadn’t said or done.  If there are any of you that can do that - well, congratulations (or your kidding yourselves)

Gruden was a football coach. I’m not surprised by his words.  That’s the world he inhabits. But again do his actions over his career matter.  Or have we reached a point where anyone can reach into our past, look for our frailties and burn us with them.


I don’t care much what happens to Gruden.  But I do think we need to think about how to deal with the past sins of people as reflected in their comments.  Does that mean automatic disqualification?  Or does that persons record - as shown by his or her actions count?  And is forgiveness still a part of our ethos?  Or are we just out to destroy.

We are all biased in one form or another. Hopefully we search for our Better Angels to weed out that bias.  In the end trying to treat others how we want to be treated is the easy answer.  Harder in reality to do.  We are, after all human…..

If this violates the Terry Rule, my apology.

[Phogge]

I’ve worked for MLB, NHL, NCAA and the NFL. By far the NFL puts more restrictions on employees (staff and casual) than the others combined. Most are attempts to protect the Shield, some of which are silly. But people know that public discussions of specifics is verboten. This is typical of almost all major companies in the USA. The only company that I have come across in 55 years of journalism that really seems to care about customers and employees alike is Nordstrom and it took a 60 Minutes investigation to discover it.

I always thought Gruden was a smart guy and totally with the Raiders public face that, “There are 31 teams in the National Football League and then there are the Oakland (LA, LV) Raiders.” Turns out he was always just a dumb ass football coach.

[Phogge]

I’ve worked for MLB, NHL, NCAA and the NFL. By far the NFL puts more restrictions on employees (staff and casual) than the others combined. Most are attempts to protect the Shield, some of which are silly. But people know that public discussions of specifics is verboten. This is typical of almost all major companies in the USA. The only company that I have come across in 55 years of journalism that really seems to care about customers and employees alike is Nordstrom and it took a 60 Minutes investigation to discover it.

I always thought Gruden was a smart guy and totally with the Raiders public face that, “There are 31 teams in the National Football League and then there are the Oakland (LA, LV) Raiders.” Turns out he was always just a dumb ass football coach.

[BostonCard]

Maybe.  I suspect the NFL is also full of good people that do not fit the stereotype that the author advances.  But today it is necessary to always look for and advance the negative. 

I think both are true; the NFL surely has a lot of people who are highly civically minded. Moreover even as single individual, as you (and Shaw) point out, Gruden is not a one-dimensional villain; he was a mentor to a number of people early in their careers, he seems to have been supported by his players, regardless of race or sexual orientation (I believe that one of the Raiders players is one of the first, maybe the only, publically out gay player).  But I would be surprised (shocked) if Gruden were the only one to have uttered racial and/or homophobic slurs.

BC

[BostonCard]

Maybe.  I suspect the NFL is also full of good people that do not fit the stereotype that the author advances.  But today it is necessary to always look for and advance the negative. 

I think both are true; the NFL surely has a lot of people who are highly civically minded. Moreover even as single individual, as you (and Shaw) point out, Gruden is not a one-dimensional villain; he was a mentor to a number of people early in their careers, he seems to have been supported by his players, regardless of race or sexual orientation (I believe that one of the Raiders players is one of the first, maybe the only, publically out gay player).  But I would be surprised (shocked) if Gruden were the only one to have uttered racial and/or homophobic slurs.

BC

[teejers1]

If this violates the Terry Rule, my apology.

If the Terry Rule is to preclude posting common sense, decency, and perspective, then yes, your post violated the Terry Rule.  If that's not the rule (and I don't think it is), then you're fine.

What is the principle advanced here with respect to the release of Gruden's emails and the termination of his position as HC of The Raiders?  As far as I can tell, just vindictiveness.  In best possible light, maybe a "scare tactic" to tell others somehow affiliated with the NFL to quit using certain terms in written communications.  Is that really how you state and then implement a policy/principle?  I dunno, man . . . 

BTW, Goose, your encryption requirement for emails still doesn't fly, does it?  Unless communication is to spouse/partner, attorney, spiritual leader, then is there any expectation of privacy on the substance of the communication, even with use of encryption to open an email?  I don't think so.  So aside from practical difficulties with such an approach, I don't think it flies as a legal matter, either.

[teejers1]

If this violates the Terry Rule, my apology.

If the Terry Rule is to preclude posting common sense, decency, and perspective, then yes, your post violated the Terry Rule.  If that's not the rule (and I don't think it is), then you're fine.

What is the principle advanced here with respect to the release of Gruden's emails and the termination of his position as HC of The Raiders?  As far as I can tell, just vindictiveness.  In best possible light, maybe a "scare tactic" to tell others somehow affiliated with the NFL to quit using certain terms in written communications.  Is that really how you state and then implement a policy/principle?  I dunno, man . . . 

BTW, Goose, your encryption requirement for emails still doesn't fly, does it?  Unless communication is to spouse/partner, attorney, spiritual leader, then is there any expectation of privacy on the substance of the communication, even with use of encryption to open an email?  I don't think so.  So aside from practical difficulties with such an approach, I don't think it flies as a legal matter, either.

[TrumpCard]

If this violates the Terry Rule, my apology.

BTW, Goose, your encryption requirement for emails still doesn't fly, does it?  Unless communication is to spouse/partner, attorney, spiritual leader, then is there any expectation of privacy on the substance of the communication, even with use of encryption to open an email?  I don't think so.  So aside from practical difficulties with such an approach, I don't think it flies as a legal matter, either.

Just had this discussion again recently.  The exceptions you listed have a sufficient number of exceptions that you still should not rely on your emails to never see the light of day.

[TrumpCard]

If this violates the Terry Rule, my apology.

BTW, Goose, your encryption requirement for emails still doesn't fly, does it?  Unless communication is to spouse/partner, attorney, spiritual leader, then is there any expectation of privacy on the substance of the communication, even with use of encryption to open an email?  I don't think so.  So aside from practical difficulties with such an approach, I don't think it flies as a legal matter, either.

Just had this discussion again recently.  The exceptions you listed have a sufficient number of exceptions that you still should not rely on your emails to never see the light of day.

[BostonCard]

I think there are two issues here.  The first is whether someone at the NFL should have leaked the emails, which are years old, and were made before Gruden was employed as a coach.  This reeks as a targeted and vindictive move.  But it is also possible, I suppose, that someone legitimately was offended, and that their assessment of "who Gruden is" is different from some posters here.  It is somewhat disturbing that someone can project a certain persona in public, and then thinking something is private, lets loose on a pattern of racial and homophobic slurs.

The second question is, given that the emails were released, what should be done.  I believe in grace; we are all human, and someone who made racial slurs years ago who is genuinely sorry and takes steps to atone, shouldn't be completely shunned.  Of course, that is easier for someone like me to say, given that I was not the target of his slurs, and I can imagine a lot of people are sick and tired of performative apologies. The key, however, is the word "genuine", and I can see how some people might be very cynical of anything that publicly expresses regret over privately shared offensive content.  I don't know Gruden; so it is hard for me to say.

More broadly, given that we have to live together, I favor both it being socially unacceptable to routinely use slurs against anyone (even seemingly in private), but also in showing grace to those who have done so and have worked to overcome whatever animus may have motivated it.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think there are two issues here.  The first is whether someone at the NFL should have leaked the emails, which are years old, and were made before Gruden was employed as a coach.  This reeks as a targeted and vindictive move.  But it is also possible, I suppose, that someone legitimately was offended, and that their assessment of "who Gruden is" is different from some posters here.  It is somewhat disturbing that someone can project a certain persona in public, and then thinking something is private, lets loose on a pattern of racial and homophobic slurs.

The second question is, given that the emails were released, what should be done.  I believe in grace; we are all human, and someone who made racial slurs years ago who is genuinely sorry and takes steps to atone, shouldn't be completely shunned.  Of course, that is easier for someone like me to say, given that I was not the target of his slurs, and I can imagine a lot of people are sick and tired of performative apologies. The key, however, is the word "genuine", and I can see how some people might be very cynical of anything that publicly expresses regret over privately shared offensive content.  I don't know Gruden; so it is hard for me to say.

More broadly, given that we have to live together, I favor both it being socially unacceptable to routinely use slurs against anyone (even seemingly in private), but also in showing grace to those who have done so and have worked to overcome whatever animus may have motivated it.

BC