One of the themes I will be discussing is the debate of when free speech is permitted, and what is looked at as acceptable to be said in the media, depending on one’s position. U.S citizens all have the right to freedom of speech, but there is some controversy regarding free speech in relation to positions held by certain people. Kenyon (2014) states that although free speech should be a right that everyone has, it is also important to note someone’s platform when looking at statements they make. Aside from having a large media platform as an athlete, there are also guidelines within organizations about what someone can and cannot say for the sake of the company or organization. Many times, people must be mindful of their situation when discussing their own personal opinions, to keep their individual thoughts independent of their group or organization (Bemiller and Trendafilova 2012). While these researchers discuss school administrators’ issues of limiting what students and coaches say to the public, this also applies to big name athletes who represent large organizations. O’Connor (2019) has also looked at the issue of teachers in schools, and the types of media they are posting outside of class. The author discusses the debate between free speech and civility in employment, which can relate to athletes speaking freely outside of their employment.
A substantial way athletes are able to voice their own opinions is through social media, specifically Twitter. Twitter is the easiest way to do so, considering a picture doesn’t need to be posted, and users can just type and post their thoughts instantly. As most people on the app post their daily thoughts or messages, some people speak out and it is seen negatively as hate speech. The term hate speech can be described as unfair treatment regarding ethnic, religious, or political groups (Collins and Anyanwu 2019). Dabhoiwala (2023) also states that freedom of speech has become political over the years due to personal motives. Collins and Anyanwu (2019) mention that social media has shown effort to combat these hateful comments, but claim that everyone perceives hate differently, so different hate speech may have different meanings. A particular issue of hate crime and religious freedom arose when an Australian rugby player made “anti-gay” remarks. This social issue was due to his discriminatory remarks on the LGBTQ+ community, but he then justified these claims due to religious freedom although he was sanctioned for voicing his opinion (Osborne and Litchfield 2021). This is an example of an athlete using their right of free speech, but being penalized because of it due to the debate of when and where some controversial opinions are appropriate, and because of the fact they are representing an organization. This parallels the debate of free speech for high profile people with large public platforms.