I agree with you, freedom to speak isn’t always pretty. I noticed some bloggers just write what they had in mind but cannot even say it in personal. Anyway, I admire Mark Cuban because he still embraced blogging and social networking.

I think Uptakeallday has the right idea...Cuban has the eye of the Tiger....

I would love to work for a guy like Cuban. He's very smart, has made many great business decisions, and stands behind his troops when they are in harms way.

This article was incoherent:

a) we're told that Howard is protected by the First Amendment, etc, etc., but then we're told that his critics just shouldn't be saying certain things.

b) Cuban's defense is incoherent...this is not a private matter since Howard is a public figure. This is no more a private matter between Howard and the Mavericks than were John Rocker's comments simply a private matter between Rocker and his team.

c) The article is really no different than Howard's critics. Howard's critics are pissed that he slammed the national anthem and think he went to far. The article defends a lighter version of Howard's views and says that "overzealous nationalism" is going to far.

just out of curiosity, did you read any of the comments sent to Mark Cuban? Many of them are have very specific nationalistic sentiments.

I am not defending Howard's sentiments, I am merely defending his right to hold un-popular beliefs.

First off, Howard is protected by the first amendment when he makes comments about his beliefs in regards to the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, etc...

Second, not all speech is protected (as anyone who chides people on not having read the Federalist Papers) should well know.

Third, simply being a public figure does not rescind one's right to privacy.

Fourth, my point was that those who claim to defend America's freedoms (namely freedom of speech) by telling people they don't agree with to shut up (or worse) are missing the point.

Lastly, I never, ever, said anywhere that those who do this don't have every right to do it. They do, but they should be every bit as prepared to take responsibility for what they say as they want Howard to be.

Freedom of speech is a weird animal. In a lot of ways both Howard and his Anonymous critics are exercising their right to spew any bile that they see fit, but I am going to have to agree with you and Ophelia that the difference is that a part of freedom is taking responsibility for being free.

The internet gives people a wall to hide behind when they lob hateful statements. Most hide behind screen names or "Anonymous", because if their words were traced back to them, it would give a "human" face to their words.

I have always believed that if you cannot say what you write face to face, then don't write it. The First Amendment, which includes the Freedom of Speech, was not signed by "Anonymous", it was signed by men who believed in the rights of the individual and we have them to thank for this fundamental symbol of freedom.

"I have always believed that if you cannot say what you write face to face, then don't write it. The First Amendment, which includes the Freedom of Speech, was not signed by "Anonymous", it was signed by men who believed in the rights of the individual and we have them to thank for this fundamental symbol of freedom."

Really, you might want to educate yourself. The Constitution was heavily debated by those who signed it in *ANONYMOUS* pamphlets and editorials. It may surprise you but there's actually a very influential series of writings that were published anonymously as part of the debate over the Constitution. That collection is commonly referred to as THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

Anonymous speech served a number of important purposes and has throughout U.S. history.

Thank you for adding this, I will now research the Federalist Papers.