i'm sure he's upset he can't go to the games this year, but given the fact he feels he only said one thing that was out of line, I doubt he realizes his general behavior is inappropriate.
I don't understand the question. People should fear reprisal and saying something incendiary can get your ass kicked. I'm fine with that. Government shouldn't be drawing lines, when it's incapable of even its core functions. Incendiary is incendiary.
why should the government arbitrarily remove the repercussions in one case and apply them in another. If you say something offensive enough to get your ass kicked, you should get your ass kicked, regardless of the actual words. If you didn't say something that should get your ass kicked, the gov't should hammer the kicker, but the decision should be on a case by case basis.
Who makes that case by case decision? And what if we don't know for sure what the person said? Do we just charge the ass kicker? I feel like you are simplifying a complex situation too much.
what do you mean who makes it? when it comes to prosecution, we have a system. We don't need predetermined decisions. if it's he said she said, the kicker has a problem and the kickee probably a case in prosecuting because there exists proof of a beating and no proof of provocation. Those are the rules, with or without an arbitrary stand by politicians and courts.
