On Tuesday night, a small group of weirdos held an anti-trans rally outside of the Seattle Storm's home arena. The occasion for their gathering was a game against the Indiana Fever and bench player Sophie Cunningham, who had recently participated in an ESPN profile where she said she wants to "protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn't have to go against biological men."
The rally seems like it was a dud, but the organizers got more of the attention they were after inside the arena. Sitting courtside during the game were two teen girls holding signs that read "Thank you Sophie for speaking up for girls," and "We love you Sophie." They were both wearing shirts from an apparel brand that donates money to anti-trans organizations. After the game, the two girls made a video with anti-trans agitator Brandi Kruse, in which they claimed they were told off in the arena by Storm minority owner Celeste Keaton. They said that Keaton told them they were "fucking insane."
The Storm reacted to this accusation first by apologizing for Keaton's actions, and then the WNBA fined and banned her from the team's next five home games.
12 Comments
brookedSmile@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 32 pts · 35d
Ohhh woman banned for speaking her mind? Sounds alot like censorship, celebrated by the side whos all about free speech, as long as your saying the same thing they are
CombatWombat@feddit.online · 23 pts · 35d
I try to limit my posts here to things that are positive, and found this one pretty marginal so if this is too much lemme know and I'll tone it down in the future.
Bryllyg@piefed.blahaj.zone · 17 pts · 35d
I appreciate the post, thank you.
I am glad I haven't seen this sort of hate in the PWHL, which feels more welcoming from my limited viewings.
CombatWombat@feddit.online · 9 pts · 35d
Of the big three women's sports leagues with teams here in seattle -- pwhl, wnba, and nwsl -- the w does seem to be the one that is most popular amongst conservatives. The minnesota frost are low key the indiana fever of the p dub tho.
tpyo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
I went to one of those games recently. Holy damn was it fun, and the stadium was full! I brought my kiddo who went from reading in the box to reading in the stands to watching the game and getting into it! I definitely want to go again. We had a blast
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 33d
sophie cunningham about to be treated like absolute dogshit by the rest of the league for getting a popular owner suspended for standing to to bigots and i love that for her
tpyo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 33d
After reading her name again I remembered she was the one who made meme-news by pointing aggressively
QueenHawlSera@piefed.social · 1 pts · 12d
The point itself was racist.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 8 pts · 33d
First amendment my foot. It’s only okay for anti-trans bigots to use their voices but not others.
chickenf622@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 33d
This is a private organization that can do as much censorship as they want. I don't agree with it, but calling this a first amendment issue is the same tactic right wing chuds also use whenever they face consequences for their words. Drag the org's name through the mud call them the pieces of shit they are, but don't perpetuate the myth that the first amendment applies to any non-government entity. Thank you for coming to my ted talk and fuck TERFs.
doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 33d
"The first amendment" is a synecdoche for free speech rights in the US in general. Those don't disappear when you step into a private space, rather the free speech rights are just balanced against property rights.
OK but. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/quasi-public-places
I would argue that the stadium, probably built with public funds, functions as a public space, and with the amount of public support for sports teams generally, I'd say theyre quasi-public too.
US courts would disagree with me at the moment (as the latter unquoted part of my link shows), but it's not as farfetched a legal theory as you imply. And like I said before, "first amendment" is used as a phrase to talk about free speech generally, even if it's not strictly making a constitutional legal argument. Its an ideal to be upheld
Tl;Dr: you're 100% correct in the current political climate. But scotus cases can be overturned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner is a more relevant case than marsh v Alabama, and it's not set in stone (good luck getting the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to overturn it, but it's not crazy)
chickenf622@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 33d
Yay I got to learn some nuance! Thanks for the sources.