Miguel Torres axed by UFC over rape joke tweet

**Permalost** · Posted On: 12/12/2011 3:50pm

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

"The UFC doesn't support 'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia'"

Is that what you meant?

or

"The UFC doesn't support poor jokes related to syndicated television shows however original material like that provided by Mr. Griffin is tolerable."

?

I support sanctions against people parroting jokes from TV shows on social networks, but I'm against ex posto facto law enforcement. Dana is just dusty old bones, full of green dust!

**cualltaigh** · Posted On: 12/12/2011 5:51pm

Just curious (I haven't been following that closely so apologies for any inaccuracies) but isn't the UFC currently in a legal process in NY attempting to argue that they should be allowed to operate in NY under freedom of expression laws? If it could be shown that they (through one of their employees) have a history of expressing negative/derogatory etc. views (or as employers being tolerant - thus supportive - of those views) be detrimental to that case?

**Rivington** · Posted On: 12/12/2011 6:43pm

Originally Posted by cualltaigh

Just curious (I haven't been following that closely so apologies for any inaccuracies) but isn't the UFC currently in a legal process in NY attempting to argue that they should be allowed to operate in NY under freedom of expression laws?

More or less.

If it could be shown that they (through one of their employees) have a history of expressing negative/derogatory etc. views (or as employers being tolerant - thus supportive - of those views) be detrimental to that case?

I am not a lawyer, but probably not. Part of the bundle of rights wrapped up in the first amendment is freedom of association. UFC doesn't want to associate with people who make rape jokes on Twitter. Private concerns don't have to worry about upholding free speech rights on their own dime, unless they declare that they do. (E.g., private colleges that state that they support free speech can't just fire professors for being Marxists and teaching through that prism or expel students for being born-again Christians and preaching on the quad.)

**cualltaigh** · Posted On: 12/12/2011 6:51pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

More or less.

I am not a lawyer, but probably not. Part of the bundle of rights wrapped up in the first amendment is freedom of association. UFC doesn't want to associate with people who make rape jokes on Twitter. Private concerns don't have to worry about upholding free speech rights on their own dime, unless they declare that they do. (E.g., private colleges that state that they support free speech can't just fire professors for being Marxists and teaching through that prism or expel students for being born-again Christians and preaching on the quad.)

Fair enough. Just thought if it was suddenly jeopardising potential sources of income it may give context to suddenly caring so much about ill-conceived social media posts.

**Rivington** · Posted On: 12/12/2011 6:55pm

UFC probably does want to shed some of their meathead aesthetic these days, but the particular issue with the First Amendment and the NY State case likely isn't a major part of it.