NBA players have bargained away any rights they have lost in exchange for other benefits.
Legally, yes. But the whole structure is interfering with a free market approach. The collective bargaining
is as much a 'problem' as is the monopoly of the owners association.
But the problem isn't that he didn't get market value, it's that he was forced to sell against his will.
I disagree. He did not receive as great a penalty as the consumers of his product thought.
If he was running a free market corporation, he would have been forced out just the same -
but wouldn't have been able to command the full market value.
DD may have worked itself out in the end, but that doesn't change the fact that the populace was leveraging its power against beliefs it disagreed with.
Bull. That was their employer, A&E either leveraging their own fear of the populace, OR their own morality.
Either way though, I totally think that boycott actions are a perfectly reasonable way of treating something
like this. It's a step better than throwing the tea into the harbor and all.
It's very dangerous when the populace uses the power of the majority (or vocal minority) to suppress ideas or beliefs. It is one thing to boycott a company/person because of its actions; quite another to do so because of its beliefs.
Money and speech have become so intertwined, that there is no other way to deal with this,
especially when it comes to the large media stage. The PRODUCT that A&E is selling is an
idea in and of itself.