People giving Ariel crap are misguided

Either misguided, naive, or too young to ever have been taught the first amendment. Now that freedoms of the past have been trampled on in recent years and political correctness has evolved into a sort of fascism, social justice warriors are allowed to run amok and the misguides blokes won't even blink as they are slapped across the face by the big floppy johnson that is fascism combined with the hive mind mentality. If you can't see what's wrong from being barred from covering a sport for reporting it, then I don't think a spark of individuality nor independent thought dwell in your skull. Phone Post 3.0

Maybe I'm wrong, but the first amendment only pertains to the government, not to private businesses unless funded by the government or something right? Phone Post 3.0

He should wear a mask and show up at events as the rogue reporter, taking care not to turn his head sideways. Phone Post 3.0

The Bill of Rights, how does it work?

"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The UFC is completely in the wrong here. Phone Post 3.0

Is anyone giving Ariel crap? I think it's widely recognized that the UFC is in the wrong here.

This right here is exactly why it's still a fringe sport. Phone Post 3.0

judonoob - "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The UFC is completely in the wrong here. Phone Post 3.0

While I support Ariel in this, the 1st ammendment has nothing to do with this. The 1st Ammendment forbids the government from restricting speech, press, etc but a private company has nothing to do with that. Legally, the UFC is allowed to do what it likes, it is an issue of legitimacy as a public entity.

Ariel has no first amendment defense here because he can still report whatever he wants, but Zuffa doesn't have to give him credentials.

Zuffa is acting quite silly with it because the story was nothing detrimental to the company. But they can give credentials to anyone they want, and revoke anyone's they want.

Ariel will still be able to report on the UFC, just won't be from press row... My buddy gets credentials for events in NJ and probably will for MSG, the press buffet I hear is amazing. I would be pissed if I got asked to leave before I got a brownie. Phone Post 3.0

This isn't a first amendment issue. Dana might act like the government but he isn't the government. Phone Post 3.0

Gaius Marius -
judonoob - "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The UFC is completely in the wrong here. Phone Post 3.0

While I support Ariel in this, the 1st ammendment has nothing to do with this. The 1st Ammendment forbids the government from restricting speech, press, etc but a private company has nothing to do with that. Legally, the UFC is allowed to do what it likes, it is an issue of legitimacy as a public entity.

Ariel is a member of the press, not an employee of the UFC so I think it could apply in this case. Phone Post 3.0

judonoob -
Gaius Marius -
judonoob - "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The UFC is completely in the wrong here. Phone Post 3.0

While I support Ariel in this, the 1st ammendment has nothing to do with this. The 1st Ammendment forbids the government from restricting speech, press, etc but a private company has nothing to do with that. Legally, the UFC is allowed to do what it likes, it is an issue of legitimacy as a public entity.

Ariel is a member of the press, not an employee of the UFC so I think it could apply in this case. Phone Post 3.0

Unfortualy while I think its bullshit they can ban him, they can ban anyone they wish from attending their private events. Its not a public goverment run event, its a private org. If they dont want certain people there they can ban them without any reason, its their business sadly. 

judonoob -
Gaius Marius -
judonoob - "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The UFC is completely in the wrong here. Phone Post 3.0

While I support Ariel in this, the 1st ammendment has nothing to do with this. The 1st Ammendment forbids the government from restricting speech, press, etc but a private company has nothing to do with that. Legally, the UFC is allowed to do what it likes, it is an issue of legitimacy as a public entity.

Ariel is a member of the press, not an employee of the UFC so I think it could apply in this case. Phone Post 3.0

Incorrect. The 1st ammendment only applies to the government. You even posted the text where it says that "Congress shall make no law." Private entites have the right to disallow journalists from having access to their events.

2JupitersTooMany - He should wear a mask and show up at events as the rogue reporter, taking care not to turn his head sideways. Phone Post 3.0
He can call himself, Not Ariel Helwani. Phone Post 3.0

trobinson21 - It has nothing at all to do with free speech for me, I just see stories broken and speculated about in every other sport, the UFC needs to be less connected to Twitter news breaks, they think that stuff ruins their plans but it does nothing and it shoes a minor league mentality to even address it.

Have your announcement as planned and carry in with life. Everyone who ordered UFC 199 doesn't follow Ariel in Twitter. Phone Post 3.0
I bought 199 last night and don't follow Ariel on Twitter. I had no idea he broke any story until after the fights and the story was broke by the UFC themselves during the broadcast. Phone Post 3.0

While OP states that people are too young or naive to understand the First Amendment, he only shows his own misunderstanding of the First Amendment. It has no applicability here. Phone Post 3.0

Lol@first amendment. What a tard Phone Post 3.0

Can't Ariel just buy a regular ticket and cover the vent as a fan and still talk to his sources after the event?

GTFOOHWTBS - Can't Ariel just buy a regular ticket and cover the vent as a fan and still talk to his sources after the event?
What sources?

Everything I read says Ariel was just a UFC shill being fed stories by the UFC itself.

If UFC cuts him off, and this is all true, then what sources are left?? Phone Post 3.0

Poopyface TomatoNose - Either misguided, naive, or too young to ever have been taught the first amendment. Now that freedoms of the past have been trampled on in recent years and political correctness has evolved into a sort of fascism, social justice warriors are allowed to run amok and the misguides blokes won't even blink as they are slapped across the face by the big floppy johnson that is fascism combined with the hive mind mentality. If you can't see what's wrong from being barred from covering a sport for reporting it, then I don't think a spark of individuality nor independent thought dwell in your skull. Phone Post 3.0
Couldn't let this one slide. Claims others are naive regarding the First Amendment before proceeding to exhibit complete naivety. You're an idiot. Phone Post 3.0

DanPS -

Still, lol at the dumbasses citing amendments on this issue.  Why a bunch of dipshits lol.

 

Ever heard of legal gag orders, what about contractual obligations refraining from release of information... Yeah, there are more but two examples shall suffice.  Let's see you try to tell your boss he's a fucking moron dipshit, and see if your "free speech" right doesn't get you fired.

 

Ammendments mean shit in buisness.  And when you want to work for someone you follow thier rules, or face the consequences.

 

Flabbergasted at the large amount of dumbasses here that think the UFC is wrong lol.  

As a member of the press credentialed at the event, he doesn't work for them you idiot. They are wrong because it is petty bullshit to punish a routine practice in sports and other topics journalists cover. It's so frustrating to see so many people on this board truly misunderstand the role of a media member. The media and the UFC are symbiotic in a sense. The UFC needs to chill and do a better job of plugging their holes instead of punishing a media member that pushes their product on a daily basis. Phone Post 3.0