Media Attacks Heisman Trophy Winner Kyler Murray for Homophobic Tweets He Sent as a 14-Year-Old

The reporters who made this nontroversy a story should be ashamed of themselves.



University of Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray won the Heisman Trophy on Saturday. The internet being what it is, some folks on social media apparently took this as an opportunity to go looking for reasons to be outraged, and discovered some homophobic tweets Murray sent when he was in high school.

Murray apologized right away, tweeting, "I used a poor choice of word that doesn't reflect who I am or what I believe. I did not intend to single out any individual or group."

For some reason, many media outlets decided this little nontroversy demanded a write-up.

"As of early Sunday morning, four offensive tweets using an anti-gay slur remained active on the Heisman winner's account," USA TODAY tweeted, with a link to its article, titled, "Kyler Murray: Heisman winner's old, homophobic tweets resurfaced."

MSN, Yahoo News, The Daily Mail, and The New York Post all wrote similar articles, because a 14-year-old boy having unwisely used the word "queer" as a slur is somehow shocking and newsworthy. The Daily Mail even claimed that Murray's post-Heisman glory was "short-lived" because of the stupid tweets.

These news articles used phrases like "resurfaced" and "revealed" to describe how the old tweets came to light, though it isn't clear who actually did the excavating. In fact, had the media simply declined to signal boost this story, it wouldn't have become a big deal in the first place.

I said it after Roseanne, I said it after Sarah Jeong, I said it after James Gunn, and I said it after Kevin Hart: It's time to declare an end to the practice of mining people's past social media comments for fire-able offenses. This holds especially true for comments made by minors. Murray was 14 and 15-years-old at the time he made these ill-advised remarks. People my age and older are very lucky that Twitter didn't exist when we were adolescents. I guarantee that the various authors of these Kyler Murray stories all said something crude or offensive—or at the very least, something they would not want "resurfaced"—when they were in high school.

Unfortunately, modern America is increasingly a place that does not allow children to make mistakes. A schoolyard scuffle is a reason to call the cops and taser the teens involved. A messy romance merits sexual exploitation charges and sex offender status. A bad tweet is front page news.

Murray is going to be fine—he apologized swiftly, and it appears that a backlash of sorts is already forming. Next time, maybe the media could simply skip the step of trying to make everybody angry about such a stupid thing.

NEXT: America Needs More Dentists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Man, if anyone would have recorded what the 14-YO Sevo did or said, I'd be in a heap of trouble!

    1. You liked disco?


      1. shook his booty no doubt!

    2. Disco inferno!

  2. I said it after Sarah Jeong

    So what did you say after Quinn Norton?

    1. Lumping Jeong, a politically correct twit and useless ball of nothing whose comments were defended by the social justice crowd, with the other examples listed is hilarious at best.

  3. Interesting isn't it that it's largely white, smug liberal elites taking down guys like Murray.

    But their racism is okay because they're liberals.

    1. But their racism is okay because they're liberals.

      Not really. The biggest woke movie last year was Get Out, and smug white liberals were the target. It's not exactly an unacknowledged issue.

      1. And smug white liberals loved that movie but refused to correct the behaviors it criticized. Rich, isn't it?

      2. I thought it was Black klansman. Or that one with the gay alien.

        1. BlacKkKlansman was this year. Not sure what the gay alien movie is.

          1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Not gay, definitely queer.

            1. That fucking blue man-milk caused me to turn that movie off at home.

              1. "Fucking blue man-milk"

                Thanks for the warning. I will scrupulously avoid entering any room where that travesty might by running.

                1. Some shitty Disney writer thought it was integral to the Star Wars story to explain what Jedis eat and drink.

                  Fucking morons.

                  1. Imagine if we found out the Jedi pooped and peed too. Riots in the streets!

      3. Were these liberals destroying a black man's career because of some tweet he posted when he was mid-teen? Because white liberals make a habit of doing this in the real world.

        1. This will just hasten the black folks fleeing the Democratic Party (The Party of slavery).

          Kevin Hart and now this. Word will get around and it wont go well for the outrage community.

      4. I went to see Get Out and didn't get what the hype was about. It wasn't terrible, but it was a mediocre movie.

    2. Serious question: Who is taking him down?
      Like who are these smug white liberals and what are they doing it him?
      Hell, the Daily Mail and New York Post are both conservative tabloids and it's not as if this is some big story from New York Times reporters or something. Fact is, I didnt even see any mention on it on any left leaning blogs today, only on right leaning ones

  4. I was certainly a homophobe at age 14. And so was almost everyone else. That light didn't come on until my early 20s. (88?).

    Did you know that the Constitution has been discredited because the Founders owned slaves?

    1. It's also been discredited because the electoral college stole two elections from the Democrats, the Republicans control the Senate due to each state have two Senators regardless of population, it makes it too difficult to remove a Republican President, it prohibits silencing people for disagreeing with the liberal elite, and it says people can have guns.

      But perhaps its worst offense is that there's no amendment declaring English grammar rules to be prescriptive, thus I can't be punished by the state for posting a run-on sentence.

      1. this week only, you'll get your comeuppance in due course

        1. you said "comeuppance"

          1. Three mis-typed letters short of being on topic

    2. That light didn't come on until my early 20s"

      Seeing as no genetic or biological reason for homosexuality has ever been established, I still haven't figured out why a predilection for sodomy or tribadism should be afforded the same status as phenotype and biological sex. It should be legal and all, but it's ultimately no different than being a furry or a car fetishist.

      1. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying you're OK with racism and sexism, but one's sexual orientation is no one else's business?

        1. How the hell did you get that?

          1. From your implication that it's OK to afford "status" based on "phenotype and biological sex".

            1. Come on, Fancylad, you're basically Hitler.

        2. Vernon, you're twisting what he said.

          1. Just asking a question. I don't know what he's trying to say.

      2. Tribadism? Huh. Had to look that one up.

        If the SJW's would replace their tribalism with tribadism, they--and everyone else--would be a lot happier.

      3. except you get shit all over your dingus...

      4. Seeing as no genetic or biological reason

        I'd guess it's a way of dealing with overpopulation while still maintaining a healthy species wide sex drive.

        Better than lemmings I suppose...

    3. There is to be no allowance made for learning. If you weren't woke when you came out of the birth canal, you're Literally Hitler.

      1. Better hope your parents were born woke, too. And their parents. I'd say go back seven generations, but that would be cultural appropriation.

    4. The Framers. The Founders wrote the Declaration the Framers wrote the Constitution.

      1. who did the windows and the tile work?

      2. Pretty much the same guys though, right?

        1. No.
 2013/09/16/ eight-myths-about-the-constitution/
          The one you want is second from the top.
          (Let's see if this post actually goes through. Also, two spaces added to the URL.)

  5. Does this mean that he has to give his Heisman back? Wasn't there some other guy that got a Heisman and killed his wife? Yeah, there was gobs of outrage over that.

    1. *allegedly

    2. Reggie Bush had to give his back. I think it was due to illegal payments made to him while he was at USC.

      1. Undocumented payments.

        1. Money Americans wouldn't take.

          Bribes by undocumented money commit fewer crimes than normal, totally legal money.

  6. I'm watching a youtube and forgot what story this comment is on.

    Let's talk baseball. Does Mike Scioscia have a new job yet?

    1. Oh snap! It's a sports-related topic!

      1. You know who else liked to change the topic?

        1. Columbo?

        2. no narrator in history?

    2. I think this guy has already been drafted by the Oakland A's and is going to play baseball next year.

      1. Baseball is where the money is. $5 million right up front and you don't get hit by locomotive linebackers.

  7. He apologized? What a faggot.

    1. Never apologize. Once there's blood in the water, there's no going back.

      1. To apologize is to admit to being a heretic and a witch.

        1. does he float?

          1. Inconclusive. They'll test for survival while being burned alive.

    2. You never ever apologize to those people, especially when you've done nothing wrong. How about you apologize for their souls, because these are deeply demented, evil people.

      1. Evil or stupid? Or both?

    3. Proper response (that we'll likely never see from any of these poor folks, because they've mostly been socialized not to be that ornery) is a flat "Fuck you."

  8. Everyone makes mistakes. If they haven't, they haven't lived. The Huge Hate that sometimes comes from the left is unacceptable to me. One of the great tenets of the Christian - Judeo religion was forgiveness. (PS: I am not and have never been other than atheist/agnostic). All people err. Honest reform (forget the Clinton's) deserves Forgiveness.

    1. *hi-five*

    2. PS: I am not and have never been other than atheist/agnostic

      Funny that everyone feels compelled to first disavow when making positive statements about religion; so as not to have their point completely ignored in the inevitable anti-theist rage of the screeching, shithead harpies like Tony, Chipper and Kirkland.

      1. To be fair, Chipper AM Penisbone actually has a reasonable vocabulary and reading age, and a sense of humor. He sometimes comes across as a bit pompous and doesn't seem to actually have read a post, but I don't get the impression he's a super-snarky person.

        Tony sometimes has a sense of humor, yet is chronically, obtusely unaware of his acutely (whoa enough with the trigonometry, egghead) shallow partisanship.

        Kirkland is the epitome of NPC, and I'm still not convinced he's genuine.

        1. oh he's genuine, a genuine died in the wool asshole.

        2. We were sentenced to get Kirkland as punishment for Volkoh joining the team.

          IIRC, Kirkland does not post caselaw or legal reasoning with its spam, which would imply NPC.

      2. Notice how fun these threads are without Tony, Buttplugger, Chipper, and Kirkland?

        1. Just so long as he-who-shall-not-be-named and high multitude of sock puppets doesn't show up, although Kirkland is rapidly closing the gap for me.

  9. Even though it's not a remarkable thing to find that folks did foolish stuff when they were young, it's still click-bait, and so the media will print it.

    1. Keep in mind that for some of us, he's still just a kid. Anything said by anybody under the age of 30 needs to be heavily discounted on the assumption that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

      1. And does anyone care if some kid called homos fags when he was 14? I occasionally call Tony a faggot here, and have never felt the slightest bit bad about it. That has very little to do,with Tony being gay, and mostly to do,with the fact that he is evil.

  10. I happen to agree that Murray should be forgiven for those homophobic tweets (on general principles of free speech), but I don't like the implicit ageism of Soave's rationale. "He was only 14!" is an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's problematic for those of us who support youth rights.

    1. I'm not interested in forgiving him. There's nothing to forgive. If anything, he should be forgiving the media jackals who dug up these tweets (and he shouldn't forgive them).

    2. Yeah, we need more kids voting for socialism.

      1. Five-minute ass-kicking video from the National Youth Rights Association: "Why should youth be allowed to vote?"

    3. Hope I'm missing the tags.

      1. Just in case, there's no way I'm clicking that "youth rights" link.

        1. Good for you. Don't click that "youth rights" link. Keep your mind closed and stay comfortable in your prejudices.

          1. Like my prejudice that 6 year olds shouldn't get a say in how the country is run? OK, I'm comfortable with that one, actually.

            1. I'm uncomfortable with 18 year olds being considered adults. 21 made more sense in terms of human mental development. An argument could be made for 24 or 25.

              1. 35. If you can't become President, how the hell are you to be trusted with a vote.

              2. Under Obamacare, you get to stay a child under mommy and daddy's insurance until you're 26.

                These people want 6-year-olds to vote but can't let a 20-year-old buy beer?

                1. What is that old quote?
                  "If my son is not a Communist when he's twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a Conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no brain."
                  [sarc]GOOD reason to shift the voting age...[/sarc]

                  It wouldn't matter if there wasn't so much control at the top. Give the government a haircut, and let pre teens participate in non-binding resolutions. That would be fine.
                  I would say the framers were closer to correct, when they tied voting to land ownership, but that is easily abused, too.
                  Better would be to say if you take more from the government in subsidies than you pay in taxes, you are ineligible to vote in the next election.
                  I'd even include such things as farm subsidies in that.
                  That would, I hope, go a long way toward eliminating the perverse incentives of the voting class.

          2. I'm just worried that the link might take me to an intergenerational love site.

    4. You know who else was once a 14-year-old boy?

      1. Michelle Obama?

      2. Tavis Smiley?

      3. Bruce Jenner?

      4. Hillary?

      5. Eli?n Gonzalez?

  11. The fact that he was 14 years-old is just the icing on the cake. People's lives shouldn't be ruined for saying stupid shit when they're 65 either.

    I'd say this is the new Puritanism, but when they Puritans put you in the stocks, it was only for a little while. In the internet age, the progressives want to make you a laughing stock forever.

    1. This is how they punish thought-crime in Progressitopia:

      1. No, this is how they punish thought-crime in Progressitopia:

    2. Imagine if he was a white kid who said 'nigger', without even employing the word asa pejorative towards anyone. It would be the end of him.

      1. Reminds me of a case a few years ago where some kids (who went to a majority white school in a gentrified area) were asking about the rules for when you could say n-----, since they were genuinely unfamiliar with the word because it's not something they ever hear.

        The comments were like, "So if I say about my friend, 'he's my niggah?' as in, I really like that guy, is that acceptable usage?" The social media mob practically stoned them to death for not knowing, even though the word is so taboo that people won't even talk about it to tell kids why it's so offensive.

        1. The words are not the real issue.

          Its that you are not Woke and you are clearly not already on Team Outrage.

  12. How gay.

  13. "My little horse must think it queer/To stop without a farmhouse near"

    "So you're calling your horse a homophobe?"

    1. Also, neigh means nay.

      1. Did you see what that horse was wearing?

        1. A leather harness and not much else?

  14. Keep it up. There's some people who haven't learned about SJWs yet.

  15. > "an opportunity to go looking for reasons to be outraged"
    Some people. How old is Murray right now? 20? 21? Something he did *a third* of his life ago is now being held against him? The evidence of profound 14 year-old wisdom? Please get a life.

    1. What needs to happen is that whenever a prominent progtard makes the slightest mistake they should be hounded to suicide.

      If this I the world they want to live in, then let THEM live in it too. No mercy for the progtarded.

      1. We won't know it because the media won't tell us.

        1. Something should be done about the media. Not that that's what they really are anymore.

          Maybe prosecuting them in droves over their advocacy for leftist candidates? They certainly are violating a large number of campaign finance law as in every election. And have been for years now.

          1. Ignoring the media is the easiest and most effective thing.

            The media types hate to be ignored.

            Ask Suderman.

      2. that's kind of harsh, because everything the progressives do is a mistake.

  16. These media fucks can all go to hell. They are trying to bring back the inquisition for some cheap clicks. The power to ruin someone's live for your own betterment, that's evil stuff.

    I'm sure these people were god damned saints when they were teenagers.

    1. That's an interesting opportunity for someone with time on their hands. Any crap like this, research the reporter's social media history and show their hypocrisy. Do it often enough, they'd start researching the researchers, but that'd be about as useful as erections to SJWs.

  17. Reason: Do you understand WHY people like it when Trump calls the Press the Enemy of the People? Because it seems to me that many of these are. Imagine someone digging up emails and things you wrote when you were a teenager, and using them to ruin your life now. They have the power to ruin your life and the NPC mob will go right along with it.

    1. Still won't get it. None of the people that are being obtuse about the media will get it until the mob is used against them.

    2. +10

    3. Do you understand WHY people like it when Trump calls the Press the Enemy of the People?

      Oh good grief. Don't fall for his schtick. Trump calls the press "the enemy of the people" for the same reason every demagogue does something similar: he wants to sow distrust in the people reporting bad things about him, so that the people will believe his propaganda over their reporting.

      1. The media has done plenty to discredit themselves, Trump is just riding the wave. I hated and distrusted the media before Trump entered politics and I"ll hate and distrust the media long after he's gone, unless they change.

        1. Exactly. The propagandists kept the American public largely ignorant of FDR's polio affliction and his inability to stand.

          Even the Lefties were scared that FDR would not be reelected if all the information was public.

      2. Trump calls the press the 'enemy of the people' because they lie to promote a political agenda while pretending to be objective.

        He was not the first to call them out for this.

        He was not the thousandth to call them out for this.

        But you will never understand this, chem. Because it's outside your programming. You haven't 'fallen' for their shtick--you ARE their shtick.

      3. I thought of corporate media as the enemy of the people long before trump threw his hat into the ring.

        That's what yall progressives just don't get: that its possible for a politician to follow the thoughts of the people, rather than the politicos telling the people what to think.

  18. It must have been the Russians.

    The media should be charged with bullying a minor.

  19. Now if only the internet mob would go after academics and political journalists for using the word "queer" with reckless abandon. I hate the word. A teenager has an excuse. Those adults don't.

    I am not queer, I am normal. Queer people wear tutus and dance the Seven Veils in Times Square while on PCP. "Not straight" is not the same thing.

    1. Past Me, we're not normal. Like, at all.

      1. I suspect that any description of normal is not something anyone really wants to be.

        1. Tony, any accurate description of you is not something anyone really wants to be.

    2. I guess I don't get it. Every time someone rattles off LGBTQ, aren't they using "queer"?

      1. Yes, and I'm on a quixotic mission to unreclaim the slur.

    3. You're queer.

      1. Perhaps, but not because I like dick.

        1. Don't be so hard on yourself, Tony: you're a queer fag, and there's nothing wrong with that.

          1. Queermosexual is the proper term I believe.

    4. I would be forced to smear you.

    5. Queer? No, no. You're definitely a fag. You anyway.

    6. "I am not queer, I am normal."

      You're also an asshole and complete fucking moron.

      1. Amd that's really where Tony's problems come into play.

  20. When will people start routinely deleting old tweets?

    1. When will people learn there's no such thing as "deleting"?

  21. Was the world always this full of retards, or did they all arise recently?

    1. Always, the internet just gave them all a platform.

      1. The internet also lets them know they're not alone. These days, no matter what retarded shit you believe, you can easily find an online community of people who believe the same.

  22. When I was a kid like around 6 or 7, we used to play a game called "smear the queer". I certainly didn't know that there was such a thing as gay nor do I suppose most of the other kids did either. Children don't typically get the ramifications of words. Which is one reason they can call each other names without thought of malice.

    1. When I was in grade school, we played Smear the Queer in PhysEd class, and, yes, the teacher called it that.

    2. The 'queer' in the sense of that game was the carrier of the ball, or the odd one out. It didn't actually have anything to do,with faggotry, or even homosexuality.

      1. And we used to play Queen of the HIll to be inclusive.

      2. This was how I always understood it, 'odd man out'.

        However, it's near certain that 'monkey in the middle' was invented by a racist.

  23. For some reason, many media outlets decided this little nontroversy demanded a write-up.

    The reason is simple. Mr. Murray is an American person. That's all the reason the enemies of the American people need to try to destroy him.

  24. So the flying monkeys of Twitter are trying to figuratively lynch a young black kid for sinning against sexual "norms" as a 14 year old?

    It seems that the progs have finally come full circle.

    1. Progressives have always been the greatest enemy of the black man. They're just becoming more obvious about it again, after hiding between diversity bulkshit for several decades.

      1. The black community has rumblings about leaving the Democratic Party for the way that black folks are treated and its the Party of slavery.

        The Uncle Toms are sent in to keep the black dissidents in the Party.
        Epoch Times- Why Blacks Are Leaving the Democratic Party


    1. They'd Kaepernick him if he didn't.

      This may impact when he's drafted. If he hadn't apologized, they might not even draft him.

      It will impact him financially.

      Nike won't sponsor him now. I'm not sure who will.

      1. If he was clever (and this is way too clever for a recent college graduate or a football player) he'd have said:

        "You're wrong to ask for an apology-the person who said that does not exist anymore, because that was a 14 year old kid, and I'm a 21-year old man. Being ignorant as a youth is an expected condition because we live life to learn, and I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I didn't understand the world very well seven years ago. I also failed an algebra quiz at that age because I had not yet learned algebra."

    2. If Kaepernick apologized, I suspect he'd get picked up by the Redskins tomorrow.

      . . . not that he'd necessarily play for a team named the Redskins.

      1. He would look great with the caricature of a native American on the side of his helmet. Would be worth it to see him back in the NFL.

      2. Considering how many Redskins QBs get broken legs, I think the team's name would be the least of his worries.

        1. Sanchez was the smart one - he played badly enough to lose the job before snapping his leg like a twig

  26. This is really becoming standard totalitarian bs. Any nail that stands out gets hammered down... It's sad to see free people do this to themselves, but maybe that's always been the case...

  27. One of the hallmarks of the new puritanism is an obsession with what people say rather than what they do.

    It would be different if this guy had actually discriminated against someone because of their orientation. But we're not talking about anything this guy did. We're talking about something he wrote?

    Gimmie a fuckin' break!

    Even in the McCarthy hearings, did they go after people for what they said? They wanted to know if you'd joined the Communist Party. As awful as it was to go after people for what organizations they'd joined, at least that's actually doing something. Speaking about something is hardly doing anything at all. Did you discriminate against somebody because they were x, y, or z? That's one thing. If you didn't discriminate against somebody who's x, y, or z--despite the fact that you don't like them for whatever reason--then that doesn't make you a bigot. That's the definition of tolerance.

    Tolerance is not discriminating against people even if you don't like them.

    Tolerance isn't liking everybody.

    1. I disagree. If Murray had refused to kiss or date a transgender woman, they'd still be prepared to destroy him.

      1. At least that would be going after him for doing something instead of saying something.

        Has he discriminated against LGBTQI+ or is it just something he said? How did those two different things become so conflated in people's minds?

        Saying something stupid does not equal discrimination. I'm sure there are millions of people who've said stupid things about people's race, sex, religion, orientation, etc.--who also make it a point not to discriminate against them.

        Saying something about some race, sex, religion, orientation, etc. and refusing to hire someone because of those things are two different things.

  28. Can't wait for Ben Shapiro to churn out another tweet about how the media isn't the enemy of the people, even though it enables the politically correct excesses he rails against.

    The Internet mob need to be defenestrated.

    1. *needs

      1. Many are on an Apple product, or use Linux or Android to run their devices, so that may not work.

  29. Sorry, this is the free market at work. "Reason" should be in favor of that.

    Hate-Fil-A donated to anti-gay causes; so I had the freedom to not patronize their establishment and to raise a ruckus. Then it was up to them how they want to respond, and up to the public if they wanted to continue patronizing the establishment. Likewise, PETA is more than free to protest McDonald's or Wendy's or whatever for serving carved-up cows, and people can respond accordingly. So, if some celebrity or footballer or elected official says something completely and totally reprehensible (see Roseanne), you bet people should have the freedom to call them out on it. I don't care if they were 64 or 14 when they did it... they should know better than to say hateful bigoted things.

    Don't get me wrong - you're free to believe whatever hateful bigoted things you want, but when you say them out loud, you bet I have the freedom to call you a hateful bigot - and that some writer for "Reason" doesn't understand this and gets their panties in a wad over this shows just how far the magazine has strayed from libertarian principles.

    1. LOL. Someone thinks Reason is insufficiently progressive? Fuck right off with this bit of apologia for mob justice.

    2. Good. Then we agree that it's the market at work when we destroy people like you for your bullshit progtard beliefs.

    3. "Don't get me wrong - you're free to believe whatever hateful bigoted things you want, but when you say them out loud, you bet I have the freedom to call you a hateful bigot"

      The question here isn't whether anyone has the right to call someone a hateful bigot. The question is whether doing so is appropriate in every situation.

      We're mostly libertarians here. You can assume just about everybody believes that you have the right to say what you want. You also have the right hit yourself in the head with a hammer. Doesn't mean you should.

      P.S. The question is also whether journalists have an ethical responsibility to stop with the struggle sessions already. Just because they have the right to publish garbage doesn't mean they should.

      1. No, this person should definitely hit themselves in the head with a hammer, repeatedly. Very hard. Sledgehammer, even.

    4. You are a hateful bigot.

    5. Chick-Fil-A contributes to pro-family and pro-christian causes.

      You're tyrannical failed boycott of that company is s sign of things to come.

      Keep trying to force people to like people they dont want to like. See what happens.

    6. you bet I have the freedom to call you a hateful bigot

      And I have the freedom to disagree. How does that violate libertarian principles?

    7. Chik Fil A seems to be doing just fine. So is McDonald's. And people are ALSO free to protest PETA's stupid policies, or to make fun of that crazy vegan nut who shot up Amazon.

      It does go both ways, you know.

  30. Also, is no one gonna call out this disgusting headline?

  31. It's time to declare an end to the practice of mining people's past social media comments for fire-able offenses.

    Well, when "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" you've *got* to mine past comments. /sarc

    1. So one of the impending draconian regulations of the federal government will require all social media sites to auto-delete everything after 18 months?

      1. Outrage groups can just check the NSA servers for racists social media posts.

        Reason doesnt even cover the domestic spying schtick anymore.

    2. Well, when "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" you've *got* to mine past comments. /sarc

      Yeah, I read that and the first thing to come to my mind was that we're going to have to stop regarding the 'anti-gay slur', whatever it was, as if it were a reading from the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred's Necronomicon.

    3. "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

  32. There is something wrong with the media if they are going to look back at what someone wrote when they were 14. Give me a break! Did anyone in media not do some dumb stuff when they were that age?

    And how is it newsworthy, anyway? It's irrelevant even for sports news. For gods sakes, are they trying to get people to sympathize with Trump against them?

    1. If we judged people on their teens...

      "I spent the last two years of high school in a daze...I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. I discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl...Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."

    2. Who is "they"

  33. Does Reason's style guide actually consider stating the truth to be an attack?

  34. Show me someone that didn't say stupid things when they were 14 and I will show you a figment of imagination.

  35. Back when I was 14 (1985)-we called men who liked men much worse things and I remember a kid in my English class telling the teacher that he thought all gays should get the death penalty. She asked him why he thought that and he said "because they Are disgusting and are giving everyone AIDS" She didn't make any effort to correct him. I don't think many people think that way anymore, fortunately, but seems like we are at the opposite extreme, where not enthusiastically embracing every alternative identity gets you in trouble, and disapproving of them can get you lynched.

    1. gay man worm epidemic

      The media wont cover this in the context that it only affects a tiny population of adults having sexual contact and does not typically affect heterosexual adults.

  36. Isn't Sarah Jeong quite a different fish, she was hating on white men as part of her political activism? Not just joking or being a dumbass. But expressing hatred as part of her politics.

    And she was hired because of those politics for a newspaper. Not hired to do a comedy act on TV or simply win an award, but hired in a role to promote politics.

    But yeah, I know you included her to bring up false equivalence - "The right does it to", because someone who openly admits racist hatred and misandry as part of their political agenda is completely acceptable when it's on the left.

    1. Yes. You covered it well.

  37. Blah blah blah. Lots of outrage at "the media" from people who already hate the media anyway. Fine I get it. And even I agree it is distasteful to go after what stupid teenagers say on social media.

    But what do you want to do about it? Anything? If not, then I really don't care.

    1. Ok, why discuss politics at all then? Why do you bother commenting here? You're effectively impotent on all 'issues,' there's nothing substantial you can do about any of it by virtue of just being one powerless person. Why bother sharing your opinions at all?

    2. I don't want to "do" anything, in the sense of using force. But what is wrong with expressing disagreement? Granted, I don't imagine that my opinion is likely to matter to the mob. Sometimes social pressure does work if enough people apply it.

  38. What is the matter I still not understand? Ankit Bishnoi What they are talking about?

  39. And yes, Reason should take this opportunity to affirm the liberties of all parties involved here.

    Any person should have the right to say whatever stupid shit that they want, on social media or elsewhere, free from government coercion.

    Any person should have the right to respond as they see fit, both in terms of speech and associations, to the words that others use, free from government coercion.

    Any person (not just the credentialed press) should have the right to report on whatever controversy that they deem appropriate, whether it be considered relevant or tawdry, free from government coercion.

    And any person should have the right to respond as they see fit, both in terms of speech and associations, to the propriety (or lack thereof) of reportage that they observe, free from government coercion.

    THAT ought to be the libertarian take on all of this. The rest is just shouting and virtue-signaling on all sides.

    1. And it goes without saying of course that all of these rights should be construed as being consistent with the NAP, of course.

      Libertarians IMO shouldn't really be providing ammunition to the authoritarians on any side who want to use these controversies to push an authoritarian agenda, either for repressing speech deemed 'hateful', or for repressing reporting deemed 'fake'.

  40. I said it after Roseanne, I said it after Sarah Jeong, I said it after James Gunn, and I said it after Kevin Hart:

    No, actually, you didn't.

    You equivocated and vacillated, and danced around without ever actually showing support for a culture of free speech.

    Instead, you seem to support a culture of guarded speech, wherein people can be severely punished for wrongthink and wrongspeak --so long as that punishment is only heartily supported by government, but not actually meted out by it (except by cutting off any recourse for the victim).

    1. a culture of guarded speech

      EVERYONE is in favor of "a culture of guarded speech" to varying extents. Unless you are going to be sticking up for the *propriety* of screaming epithets in church or some other reverential place, even though all agree that you should have the *right* to do so.

      so long as that punishment is only heartily supported by government

      The courts have done an admirable job of sticking up for the right of free speech, actually. Those are some of the rare SCOTUS decisions that are 8-1 or 9-0.

      1. No, chem, everyone is NOT in favor of a culture of guarded speech and your attempt at an example proving the idiocy that you think is a point just makes you look even more foolish than usual.

        But then, you think shouting people down and keeping people from exercising their right to free speech IS free speech (teen scoop--it's not).

        And, chem, there is more to government than the judiciary. There's the executive, the legislative, and the bureaucracy.

        1. No, chem, everyone is NOT in favor of a culture of guarded speech

          Oh good heavens. Do you act and speak differently depending on the situation and the surroundings? Do you talk the same way to your boss at a personnel review meeting, as you talk to your buddies at the bar during a football game? Of course the answer is no. Don't be silly. The question isn't "should we guard our speech based on the situation?" - the answer is clearly yes. The real question is, what is the most appropriate way to guard your speech, and to whom?

          1. Allow me to repeat myself--

            you look even more foolish than usual.

            One is not 'guarding' one's speech when one speaks differently in a business meeting versus a barroom.

            This is as stupid as your attempt to attach it to shrieking.

            But let me help. Guarding one's speech refers to self censorship of certain words and concepts because using those words of believing those concepts can result in government approved--but not furnished-- punishment.

            You are not 'guarding' your speech when you don't talk about the hottie in the tight dress at a performance review with your boss. The hottie is not the topic. Your performance is.

            1. So you're agreeing with me, with the need to choose one's speech carefully depending on the audience and environment, but you don't want to admit to agreeing with me, and instead bring up this ridiculous strawman of "government approved - but not furnished - punishment". What exactly does this mean? If you tell your girlfriend/wife that yes, that dress really does make her look fat (because you weren't mindful of your audience when choosing your speech), and she slaps you, is that an example of "government approved - but not furnished - punishment"? I think this is more of a case of you objecting to the censure that certain people get for expressing "unapproved" opinions, and instead of recognizing this censure for what it is (more often than not), which is simply other people expressing their liberties to disapprove of these unpopular opinions, you bring in the government bogeyman to pretend that there is some element to state-sanctioned punishment going on here. There isn't.

              1. Is there someplace else you could go? Seriously.

                You don't understand how to construct an example, how to understand an example or apparently how humans interact.

                You're not 'guarding' things when you're in a meeting talking about your performance over the year, Chem. The subjects that would arise in a bar simply don't arise. No one is making an effort to avoid blurting out how much they'd like another round. It just doesn't come up.

                You DO avoid mentioning the fact that Dashawn, one of the guys on your team, is always late because even though it's screwing things up and destroying your team's morale that this one guy always gets away with being late the chance that your noticing might be taken as racial bias is far worse.

                THAT'S guarding your speech, chem.

                And why is it 'government approved - but not furnished - punishment'?

                Because, if you get to the point where you HAVE to say something and the race card is played, there's a good chance you'll lose your job without any recourse--and people fired 'with cause' don't get on the unemployment benefits train.

                Do you understand? There's no avenue to petition the state for a redress of grievances.

                And your girlfriend example, once again, has taken your foolishness to new depths. You keep trying to juxtapose completely private interactions with actions that are not private at all. Public forums, public places or businesses.

                1. So once again you're agreeing with me, but you can't be seen to be agreeing with me, so you virtual signal to your tribe by continuing to argue with me.

                  You're not 'guarding' things when you're in a meeting talking about your performance over the year, Chem.

                  You're not? I sure am. There's a few choice words I'd like to have told various bosses in my life about their unfair judgments of my performance. But I *didn't* because that would have gotten me fired. It wasn't the right time or place. That was me self-censoring. Everyone does that. Even you do that. You haven't refuted any of my examples of self-censorship. You've just tried to redefine them as something else. We both agree that there is noting inherently wrong with self-censorship; in general it has nothing to do with state coercion, and it is instead about manners, customs, and being aware of one's environment and audience.

                  The subjects that would arise in a bar simply don't arise.

                  You mean subjects like "man I really hate my boss"?

                2. You DO avoid mentioning the fact that Dashawn, one of the guys on your team, is always late because even though it's screwing things up and destroying your team's morale that this one guy always gets away with being late the chance that your noticing might be taken as racial bias is far worse.

                  THAT'S guarding your speech, chem.

                  Well FINALLY we really get to what is sticking in your craw. Yes, that is ONE example, OF MANY, of guarding one's speech, if you work for a hyper-sensitive boss who puts racial sensitivity over things like actually getting a job done. If that is the case then you have a terrible boss.

                  But, let us suppose for a moment that I could wave a magic wand and eliminate all anti-discrimination laws. What has changed about your situation? Your boss still has the ability to fire you at will, if your boss thinks you're a racist for picking on Dashawn (which I guess is the stereotypical black guy's name that you have picked). And you still wouldn't have access to unemployment benefits.

                  Or, let us suppose for a moment that instead of Dashawn who is late, suppose it is "the boss's nephew". What has changed about your situation? You still run the risk of being fired if you speak ill of the boss's relative, even if the criticism is warranted, and it has nothing to do with racial bias.

                  So the "guarding of speech" that you are so concerned about has nothing really to do with "government-backed coercion" or however you put it.

    2. You equivocated and vacillated, and danced around without ever actually showing support for a culture of free speech.

      You can tell by the way he says "anti-gay slur" without exactly explaining what the word itself was or if it was even being used in an anti-gay sense. He's not freeing Kyler Murray to use words to the meaning and audience of his choice or facilitating the readers' free evaluation of the words, the context or both. Instead, he invokes some slur we dare not speak like it's something from the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred' Necronomicon or something.

  41. USA Today is a paper people only read while taking a crap in a hotel that slips it under their door.

    1. I take home and give it to friends to line their bird cages with.

      All its good for.

  42. "I said it after Roseanne, I said it after Sarah Jeong, I said it after James Gunn, and I said it after Kevin Hart: It's time to declare an end to the practice of mining people's past social media comments for fire-able offenses. This holds especially true for comments made by minors."

    Just like they, the government of the people (in charge) by the people (in charge) and for the people (in charge), declared an end to prostitution and drugs, mirite? Who will declare this end to THING WE DON'T LIKE and how will it be enforced?

  43. already has 1st round MLB money and now Heisman. perfect opportunity to tell twitterherd to fuck off.

  44. also this place should be forefront in stopping overuse of "phobe". someone else brought it up last week and I agree.

    "homophobic tweets"

    1. Yes. Please please please please reason, at least -- you are in control of your own content and headlines -- stop using "homophobic" (or transphobic or Islamophobic or any other phobic) unless you know that a sentiment that can be construed as anti-any-group derives from fear.

      It's (fake, incorrect, wrong) pop psychology that dislike derives from fear. It MIGHT derive from fear, but it COULD derive from many things. Unless we know fear.........-phobic is inappropriate.

      Just stop.

  45. This is a plot by the Crimson Tide to distract the young man from their upcoming playoff matchup

    1. Roll Tide!

  46. Also, why do these Weigelian gutter vermin in the JournoList always deliberately wait until the moment someone reaches their highest point before dropping the hammer on them?

    Because they're the absolute scum of the earth. They really do take that much pleasure in knocking someone down.

  47. This man should be arrested, tried and convicted for rape for engaging in such violent and depraved thoughts as a 14 year old boy.
    One can only imagine what is going through his head now that he is an adult.
    Only through the incarceration of all males, removing their testicles and penis, and sown on every one woman will the female gender finally reach the noble goal of equality of the sexes.
    Every feminist worth their ovaries will tell you this in a heart beat.
    So, let's march all those male sexist pigs off to the gulag and do what is necessary to have a just society before its too late.

  48. Just imagine what if the reporters who reported Kyler Murray's tweet got a taste of their own medecine if various people search for old tweets the reporters in question posted?

  49. One would normally say this is just another example of media bottom-feeders, but that implies there's a bottom. Apparently we haven't hit it yet.

  50. Dumpster-diving journalists have names and they have pasts that can be investigated also. The only way to put a stop to this bullshit is to subject these McCarthyistic Progressives to the same treatment.

    Help me folks: what does the "Q" in LGBTQ stand for? I thought it was "queer".

  51. History is written by the winners. It's sad to see who's winning.

  52. "MSN, Yahoo News, The Daily Mail, and The New York Post "

    Well, that makes sense then.
    This isnt exactly the front page of the Washington Post.Two of those are basically shit posting algorithms (half of "yahoo news" headlines end with "and what happened next is unbelievable") and the other two are [conservative] tabloids. This is a troll story.
    Basically how it works is Someone is irrationally mad about something (typically the person is some rando and they are mad on twitter). Then a tabloid picks it up and creates a headline portraying the thing as a major issue. Then some more tabloids quote the other tabloids in order to be outraged about the tabloid making it a big story (like how it's on the front page of this site for example). Then so many tabloids write about it that it starts showing up at the top of algorithm based sites like Yahoo/MSN/AOL News/USA Today and so forth. Then it travels so much that it starts showing up on actual news sites because now it's an actual news story and it's on ESPN.....Then in about 24 hours we'll all forget about it because it was stupid to begin with and we're on to the new dumb outrage.
    All the while we can ignore all the real important horrible things because we're busy being outraged about outrages that come from someone being outraged (or maybe not so much, it seems the original person twitter person being quotes in the articles was being sarcastic and cant believe he's being quotes on yahoo news)

  53. Couldn't agree more, Mr. Angelillo.

  54. Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, it all depends from you and how much you want to earn each day. Go to this site home tab for more detail... -

  55. Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, it all depends from you and how much you want to earn each day. Go to this site home tab for more detail... -

  56. So now we are going to attack someone for something they tweeted at 14? Seriously? I am really sick of people looking for anything to be offended by and then ranting and raving, demanded we also be offended. Sorry, teenagers say and do stupid crap. Holding someone accountable for something they did in when they were a FRESHMAN in HIGH SCHOOL is insane. These people need to get a grip and relax. Stop looking for ways to be offended and focus your time and energy on the problems that really matter.

  57. "Steve King wasn't asking about the phone, he was asking about the ad--and why it showed up via Google (which IS the pre-installed browser) on his granddaughters phone."

    So what?

  58. So it's a couple of days after this now, and it's basically out of the news already.

    There's no reason to think he's going to suffer any lasting harm for this, or that anyone really cares (including LGBT news sites). So what's the problem? Is Reason now advocating for a "Right to be Forgotten" like they have in Europe?

  59. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable reaction. He said something wrong, he said it as an early teen, and people got upset (but not too upset...pretty much everyone I've heard has qualified criticism with an acknowledgement that it was said as an idiotic kid, and that this is different from comments made as an adult in his 20s...which is different than comments made by a fully-formed adult in his or her 40s or 50).

    Since he had the integrity to apologize, I suspect that there will be, essentially, nothing said about it by next week, and the impact on his life, his earning capacity, etc, will be close to zero.

    Given that a jillion teens have access to social media, I think it is PERFECTLY FINE, and a good life lesson, to teach all of them that what they write will live forever. So, before they want to make smart-ass or mean-spirited comments, they should take a deep breath, count to 30, and then re-determine the wisdom of hitting "send" on that oh-so-clever tweet or post. (Note: This wisdom may be equally applied to major political figures who may say similarly stupid things via tweets on an almost daily basis.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.