12-19-2015, 04:05 PM
(12-19-2015, 03:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please give us the details internet bully.
LOL
Quote:I can't wait to be taught by a Sociopath.
You do know that's a screen name right?
Quote:Please show me my 40+ years in business running major companies was all for nothing.
Sadly, for you, I will waste my time and do exactly that.
While I am much more familiar with criminal law I can tell you that your ability to sue for discrimination, in this case for selective enforcement, is predicated on demonstrable malice. I. e. the NFL has to be shown to have deliberately ignored Williams and targeted Flowers with intent to do so. Additionally, the two situations in question need to be legally similar. I will now explain to you why the two tweets, as argued by a lawyer, are not the same. In Williams tweet the "threat" is stated via the use of slang, in this case "paint". In Flowers case he uses plain English language such as "mass murder" and getting "necks". The NFL lawyer could argue, correctly, that Williams' tweet does not imply a death threat as the meaning of the word "paint" as expressed by Williams cannot be determined. The NFL and Williams could easily, and correctly, argue that Williams use of the word "paint", as slang, could mean a multitude of things hence it cannot, in a legal sense, be quantified. Flowers' use of "mass murder" allows for no such ambiguity, or more correctly none at all.
Additionally, the CBA states that Goodell is the final arbiter of discipline. The only reason Brady slimed away from his punishment was that the connections between him and the deflators were tenuous and not legally potent enough to justify his suspension. In this case there is a direct and undeniable link between Flowers and his tweet. Flowers hands are tied due to the contract that his own union agreed upon with the NFL.
