(12-19-2021 03:04 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote: As some posters are recent first time donors, I'm not shocked there is a misunderstanding of "boosters" and "recruiting." As a Duke Club member (aka booster), you cannot recruit a potential student athlete (aka cannot communicate with at all, no tweet replies, no DMs, basically no change in relationship with the student athlete before or after they become a "recruit"). A fan is not necessarily a booster as just cheering for a team doesn't meet the threshold, but anyone that made an investment (in time or in money) is a booster.
I'm ~95% sure that JMU sent out an email ~5 years ago clarifying the situation. It is also on the JMU Sports website.
Now in practice - There are 37 million US based daily twitter users accounting for 500 million tweets a day. In the meantime, coaches are making handshake deals with Nike and pro agents; students are taking fake classes / getting fake grades, parents are getting cushy jobs; kids are getting bags of cash and cushy summer jobs; recruiting trips are including strippers; and at least holy roller is calling an escort hotline. So with all the more severe violations that the NCAA is trying to run down, some Joe Schmoe tweeting some unranked recruit is probably at the bottom of the priority list.
Very true.
However....
Always remember the classic Tarkanian quote: "The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they're going to give Cleveland State another year of probation."
The NCAA knows they are losing control, so they could try to find someone "mid-major" (aka JMU) to show how they are trying to reign things in.
If anything, have someone (a friend, not a relative) who is not a Duke Club member tweet a link to one of our recruiting threads where we talk glowingly about the player. Direct, traceable contact could be bad until the rules are updated.
(12-19-2021 01:54 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Wonder if BarStool Sports tweeted at 5 star recruit Travis Hunter before their their money (alleged $1.5mil NIL) and ties to Deion Sanders landed him at Jackson State? And if so, where this ‘violation’ falls on their priority list next to Travis’ recruiting concerns that has had everyone discussing. Many recruits tweet out their offers and interests and many “boosters” respond with comments, including many of us here. If any of you have ever tweeted at an athlete not yet signed with JMU I guess you are guilty as well. That said I highly doubt the NCAA has such a tweet at the top of their list of things to investigate.
PS: judging by the replies to his own tweet announcing his going into the portal we have Auburn, Akron, Florida A&M, and Montana on the hotlist to go with the more than 1 JMU booster reaching out.
(12-19-2021 01:54 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Wonder if BarStool Sports tweeted at 5 star recruit Travis Hunter before their their money (alleged $1.5mil NIL) and ties to Deion Sanders landed him at Jackson State? And if so, where this ‘violation’ falls on their priority list next to Travis’ recruiting concerns that has had everyone discussing. Many recruits tweet out their offers and interests and many “boosters” respond with comments, including many of us here. If any of you have ever tweeted at an athlete not yet signed with JMU I guess you are guilty as well. That said I highly doubt the NCAA has such a tweet at the top of their list of things to investigate.
PS: judging by the replies to his own tweet announcing his going into the portal we have Auburn, Akron, Florida A&M, and Montana on the hotlist to go with the more than 1 JMU booster reaching out.
Barstool doesnt have an NIL deal with Hunter
Which is what JSU and Deion’s people claim, which is why I said “alleged $1.5mil NIL”, but people are still talking about it. With high school kids getting deals equal to that you’re naive to think he won’t be pulling something from them. And I highly doubt one of our forum members tweeting at him a gif of Duke Dog unpacking a suitcase in a dorm room, amongst tweets touting the previously mentioned schools, would put us on watch.
I think the reason Ariz St and LSU have specifically mentioned this to their boosters was twofold. And it was the second part (let the coaches do the recruiting) that struck me as more pertinent.
1)It technically could be considered a violation (but not one that's likely to get pursued)
2) More importantly, coaching staff feels they want control over what gets said to the recruit. Don't want a recruit to get a bad impression of the school based on a dufus Walmart fan or drunken booster.
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2021 05:18 PM by olddawg.)
(12-19-2021 01:54 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Wonder if BarStool Sports tweeted at 5 star recruit Travis Hunter before their their money (alleged $1.5mil NIL) and ties to Deion Sanders landed him at Jackson State? And if so, where this ‘violation’ falls on their priority list next to Travis’ recruiting concerns that has had everyone discussing. Many recruits tweet out their offers and interests and many “boosters” respond with comments, including many of us here. If any of you have ever tweeted at an athlete not yet signed with JMU I guess you are guilty as well. That said I highly doubt the NCAA has such a tweet at the top of their list of things to investigate.
PS: judging by the replies to his own tweet announcing his going into the portal we have Auburn, Akron, Florida A&M, and Montana on the hotlist to go with the more than 1 JMU booster reaching out.
Barstool doesnt have an NIL deal with Hunter
Which is what JSU and Deion’s people claim, which is why I said “alleged $1.5mil NIL”, but people are still talking about it. With high school kids getting deals equal to that you’re naive to think he won’t be pulling something from them. And I highly doubt one of our forum members tweeting at him a gif of Duke Dog unpacking a suitcase in a dorm room, amongst tweets touting the previously mentioned schools, would put us on watch.
As well as barstool themselves and multiple media outlets saying theres no deal. Barstool makes it very well known who they sponsor and flat out said they would push recruits to Michigan and Wisconsin if they were giving HS kids money.
(12-19-2021 04:37 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote: Always remember the classic Tarkanian quote: "The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they're going to give Cleveland State another year of probation."
The NCAA knows they are losing control, so they could try to find someone "mid-major" (aka JMU) to show how they are trying to reign things in.
I actually thought of that right off the bat. Excellent quote, and Tark was quite correct.
(12-19-2021 01:54 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Wonder if BarStool Sports tweeted at 5 star recruit Travis Hunter before their their money (alleged $1.5mil NIL) and ties to Deion Sanders landed him at Jackson State? And if so, where this ‘violation’ falls on their priority list next to Travis’ recruiting concerns that has had everyone discussing. Many recruits tweet out their offers and interests and many “boosters” respond with comments, including many of us here. If any of you have ever tweeted at an athlete not yet signed with JMU I guess you are guilty as well. That said I highly doubt the NCAA has such a tweet at the top of their list of things to investigate.
PS: judging by the replies to his own tweet announcing his going into the portal we have Auburn, Akron, Florida A&M, and Montana on the hotlist to go with the more than 1 JMU booster reaching out.
Barstool doesnt have an NIL deal with Hunter
Which is what JSU and Deion’s people claim, which is why I said “alleged $1.5mil NIL”, but people are still talking about it. With high school kids getting deals equal to that you’re naive to think he won’t be pulling something from them. And I highly doubt one of our forum members tweeting at him a gif of Duke Dog unpacking a suitcase in a dorm room, amongst tweets touting the previously mentioned schools, would put us on watch.
As well as barstool themselves and multiple media outlets saying theres no deal. Barstool makes it very well known who they sponsor and flat out said they would push recruits to Michigan and Wisconsin if they were giving HS kids money.
Yet Portnoy has not actually done anything to dispel those rumors. And if anybody has followed along Coach Prime has done far more recruiting solicitations than our forum members.
Quote:
Asked by The Post if this rumor is accurate, Portnoy, Barstool’s founder, said, “No comment.”
Citing a source close to the Jackson State program, Front Office Sports reported that the rumor Barstool has a NIL deal with Hunter is “FALSE.” Khari Thompson, a Jackson State beat writer for the Clarion Ledger, also reported the Hunter-Barstool rumor is “not true.”
Yet, Portnoy appears to be acting as if the rumors are true. “#barstoolmillions #nil,” he tweeted.
He also responded to a Twitter user complaining about Barstool doing a multi-million dollar NIL deal with a gif of Mr. Krabs from “SpongeBob SquarePants” playing a tiny violin with no sympathy.
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2021 07:36 PM by Polish Hammer.)
(12-19-2021 01:42 AM)Purple Wrote: I'm hoping that Cig makes Jeff Undercuffler a full scholly offer immediately. This guy has two or three years of eligibility left and is an exceptional (All-American) passer. He has a great long ball and tremendous vision to find open receivers. I sent him a tweet urging him to choose Belt-bound JMU, and I hope he brings #86 with him....
Not sure how JMU's football staff and the Athletic Department in general views fans and boosters tweeting recruits.
Arizona State, for example, has sent this out to their fanbase: "Reminder to boosters: Tweeting recruits is an NCAA violation. Please leave the recruiting to our coaches"
Might be worth looking into...
Indeed. I had never heard that. However AZSU used the term "booster." Wouldn't that be different than Joe Fan tweeting? And, frankly, if that is an NCAA violation, I'm pretty sure that rule would be a violation of the First Amendment, not that I would ever expect it to get to that level.
Others have clarified the definition of “booster,” but as for the first amendment it only applies to government restraint of freedom of speech and, unless I’m mistaken, the NCAA is a private enterprise. It’s like how people getting banned or censored by Twitter isn’t a 1st amendment matter either.
(12-19-2021 12:45 PM)JMUDukes1750 Wrote: Doesn't matter if it's a violation or not, you shouldn't tweet at kids.
This!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When in doubt, address the flow chart:
Some very simple little "Congratulations!" or "Would love to have you here!" type reply to their tweet about your specific school is pretty much the limit without being a bad look imo. But even then, generally better to just like and/or retweet and move on.
(12-19-2021 01:42 AM)Purple Wrote: I'm hoping that Cig makes Jeff Undercuffler a full scholly offer immediately. This guy has two or three years of eligibility left and is an exceptional (All-American) passer. He has a great long ball and tremendous vision to find open receivers. I sent him a tweet urging him to choose Belt-bound JMU, and I hope he brings #86 with him....
Not sure how JMU's football staff and the Athletic Department in general views fans and boosters tweeting recruits.
Arizona State, for example, has sent this out to their fanbase: "Reminder to boosters: Tweeting recruits is an NCAA violation. Please leave the recruiting to our coaches"
Might be worth looking into...
Indeed. I had never heard that. However AZSU used the term "booster." Wouldn't that be different than Joe Fan tweeting? And, frankly, if that is an NCAA violation, I'm pretty sure that rule would be a violation of the First Amendment, not that I would ever expect it to get to that level.
Others have clarified the definition of “booster,” but as for the first amendment it only applies to government restraint of freedom of speech and, unless I’m mistaken, the NCAA is a private enterprise. It’s like how people getting banned or censored by Twitter isn’t a 1st amendment matter either.
I am among those whose freedom of speech has been censored by Big Tech. As our Constitution is intentionally broad in its language, there is much room for interpretation. Thus, my opinion on this has yet to be challenged in a court of law as far as I know, but certainly should be.
The Bill of Rights was written as a "guarantee" that the federal government (actually, in the First Amendment, only Congress is mentioned, but that has already been extended to all "government") must guarantee our civil rights, in this case, freedom of speech. Again, it only mentions the government and not private businesses. But, by standing by and willfully, knowingly watching the systematic denial of freedom of speech, a civil right, by private businesses against a certain class of individuals, isn't our government (our guarantor) complicit in that violation? Of course they are!
If an armed, on-duty cop watches as a thug shoots and kills several people in public, and does nothing, is he complicit? Yes, and he (or she) will likely be charged by the government and his employer sued by the families of the victims. Would anyone argue that this would not be an acceptable course of action?
So, it would wind up being a matter of redress against the government for its complicity in allowing the civil rights of individuals to be denied, which is in direct violation of its constitutional duty.
This, of course, would have to be adjudicated by a federal court, and likely at the highest level, and the wheels of progress turn very slowly.
You can disagree with my opinion all you like, but I have been a victim of this civil rights abuse by Big Tech (and our government via its complicity) and have given the subject a great deal of thought over several years.
There are many, many lawsuits underway right now regarding this. A group of publishers I belong to was contacted by Liz Harrington, Donald Trump's spokesperson, a few months ago wanting to know if we would like to join The Donald in a class-action lawsuit against Big Tech. Because it would take so much time and effort to pursue the First Amendment angle, the antitrust and unfair business practice avenue is the likely course we will take, if it ever happens at all. We will see.
(12-19-2021 01:54 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Wonder if BarStool Sports tweeted at 5 star recruit Travis Hunter before their their money (alleged $1.5mil NIL) and ties to Deion Sanders landed him at Jackson State? And if so, where this ‘violation’ falls on their priority list next to Travis’ recruiting concerns that has had everyone discussing. Many recruits tweet out their offers and interests and many “boosters” respond with comments, including many of us here. If any of you have ever tweeted at an athlete not yet signed with JMU I guess you are guilty as well. That said I highly doubt the NCAA has such a tweet at the top of their list of things to investigate.
PS: judging by the replies to his own tweet announcing his going into the portal we have Auburn, Akron, Florida A&M, and Montana on the hotlist to go with the more than 1 JMU booster reaching out.
Barstool doesnt have an NIL deal with Hunter
Which is what JSU and Deion’s people claim, which is why I said “alleged $1.5mil NIL”, but people are still talking about it. With high school kids getting deals equal to that you’re naive to think he won’t be pulling something from them. And I highly doubt one of our forum members tweeting at him a gif of Duke Dog unpacking a suitcase in a dorm room, amongst tweets touting the previously mentioned schools, would put us on watch.
As well as barstool themselves and multiple media outlets saying theres no deal. Barstool makes it very well known who they sponsor and flat out said they would push recruits to Michigan and Wisconsin if they were giving HS kids money.
Yet Portnoy has not actually done anything to dispel those rumors. And if anybody has followed along Coach Prime has done far more recruiting solicitations than our forum members.
Quote:
Asked by The Post if this rumor is accurate, Portnoy, Barstool’s founder, said, “No comment.”
Citing a source close to the Jackson State program, Front Office Sports reported that the rumor Barstool has a NIL deal with Hunter is “FALSE.” Khari Thompson, a Jackson State beat writer for the Clarion Ledger, also reported the Hunter-Barstool rumor is “not true.”
Yet, Portnoy appears to be acting as if the rumors are true. “#barstoolmillions #nil,” he tweeted.
He also responded to a Twitter user complaining about Barstool doing a multi-million dollar NIL deal with a gif of Mr. Krabs from “SpongeBob SquarePants” playing a tiny violin with no sympathy.
Barstool and all their personalities love publicity and this is nothing more than getting free clicks when everyone is up in arms over a DB going to play for Deion at an HBCU which actually makes complete sense
(12-19-2021 04:39 PM)fishingduke12 Wrote: Barstool doesnt have an NIL deal with Hunter
Which is what JSU and Deion’s people claim, which is why I said “alleged $1.5mil NIL”, but people are still talking about it. With high school kids getting deals equal to that you’re naive to think he won’t be pulling something from them. And I highly doubt one of our forum members tweeting at him a gif of Duke Dog unpacking a suitcase in a dorm room, amongst tweets touting the previously mentioned schools, would put us on watch.
As well as barstool themselves and multiple media outlets saying theres no deal. Barstool makes it very well known who they sponsor and flat out said they would push recruits to Michigan and Wisconsin if they were giving HS kids money.
Yet Portnoy has not actually done anything to dispel those rumors. And if anybody has followed along Coach Prime has done far more recruiting solicitations than our forum members.
Quote:
Asked by The Post if this rumor is accurate, Portnoy, Barstool’s founder, said, “No comment.”
Citing a source close to the Jackson State program, Front Office Sports reported that the rumor Barstool has a NIL deal with Hunter is “FALSE.” Khari Thompson, a Jackson State beat writer for the Clarion Ledger, also reported the Hunter-Barstool rumor is “not true.”
Yet, Portnoy appears to be acting as if the rumors are true. “#barstoolmillions #nil,” he tweeted.
He also responded to a Twitter user complaining about Barstool doing a multi-million dollar NIL deal with a gif of Mr. Krabs from “SpongeBob SquarePants” playing a tiny violin with no sympathy.
Barstool and all their personalities love publicity and this is nothing more than getting free clicks when everyone is up in arms over a DB going to play for Deion at an HBCU which actually makes complete sense
Maybe so, but if he was truly going there for reasons he disclosed he’d have been saying it for awhile and helping bring others along prior to signing day. Instead at the last moment he flipped on a commitment he’s had since March 2020. With the NILs being what they are, I’m sure he’s not just going there to help push an HBCU to the front of the pack without any deal in place.
(12-19-2021 01:42 AM)Purple Wrote: I'm hoping that Cig makes Jeff Undercuffler a full scholly offer immediately. This guy has two or three years of eligibility left and is an exceptional (All-American) passer. He has a great long ball and tremendous vision to find open receivers. I sent him a tweet urging him to choose Belt-bound JMU, and I hope he brings #86 with him....
Not sure how JMU's football staff and the Athletic Department in general views fans and boosters tweeting recruits.
Arizona State, for example, has sent this out to their fanbase: "Reminder to boosters: Tweeting recruits is an NCAA violation. Please leave the recruiting to our coaches"
Might be worth looking into...
Indeed. I had never heard that. However AZSU used the term "booster." Wouldn't that be different than Joe Fan tweeting? And, frankly, if that is an NCAA violation, I'm pretty sure that rule would be a violation of the First Amendment, not that I would ever expect it to get to that level.
Others have clarified the definition of “booster,” but as for the first amendment it only applies to government restraint of freedom of speech and, unless I’m mistaken, the NCAA is a private enterprise. It’s like how people getting banned or censored by Twitter isn’t a 1st amendment matter either.
I am among those whose freedom of speech has been censored by Big Tech. As our Constitution is intentionally broad in its language, there is much room for interpretation. Thus, my opinion on this has yet to be challenged in a court of law as far as I know, but certainly should be.
The Bill of Rights was written as a "guarantee" that the federal government (actually, in the First Amendment, only Congress is mentioned, but that has already been extended to all "government") must guarantee our civil rights, in this case, freedom of speech. Again, it only mentions the government and not private businesses. But, by standing by and willfully, knowingly watching the systematic denial of freedom of speech, a civil right, by private businesses against a certain class of individuals, isn't our government (our guarantor) complicit in that violation? Of course they are!
If an armed, on-duty cop watches as a thug shoots and kills several people in public, and does nothing, is he complicit? Yes, and he (or she) will likely be charged by the government and his employer sued by the families of the victims. Would anyone argue that this would not be an acceptable course of action?
So, it would wind up being a matter of redress against the government for its complicity in allowing the civil rights of individuals to be denied, which is in direct violation of its constitutional duty.
This, of course, would have to be adjudicated by a federal court, and likely at the highest level, and the wheels of progress turn very slowly.
You can disagree with my opinion all you like, but I have been a victim of this civil rights abuse by Big Tech (and our government via its complicity) and have given the subject a great deal of thought over several years.
There are many, many lawsuits underway right now regarding this. A group of publishers I belong to was contacted by Liz Harrington, Donald Trump's spokesperson, a few months ago wanting to know if we would like to join The Donald in a class-action lawsuit against Big Tech. Because it would take so much time and effort to pursue the First Amendment angle, the antitrust and unfair business practice avenue is the likely course we will take, if it ever happens at all. We will see.
Dignan made the point I was going to bring up about the 1st amendment. What you're advocating for is that the government should step in and tell private businesses what they can or cannot say, which would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
(12-19-2021 11:58 AM)olddawg Wrote: Not sure how JMU's football staff and the Athletic Department in general views fans and boosters tweeting recruits.
Arizona State, for example, has sent this out to their fanbase: "Reminder to boosters: Tweeting recruits is an NCAA violation. Please leave the recruiting to our coaches"
Might be worth looking into...
Indeed. I had never heard that. However AZSU used the term "booster." Wouldn't that be different than Joe Fan tweeting? And, frankly, if that is an NCAA violation, I'm pretty sure that rule would be a violation of the First Amendment, not that I would ever expect it to get to that level.
Others have clarified the definition of “booster,” but as for the first amendment it only applies to government restraint of freedom of speech and, unless I’m mistaken, the NCAA is a private enterprise. It’s like how people getting banned or censored by Twitter isn’t a 1st amendment matter either.
I am among those whose freedom of speech has been censored by Big Tech. As our Constitution is intentionally broad in its language, there is much room for interpretation. Thus, my opinion on this has yet to be challenged in a court of law as far as I know, but certainly should be.
The Bill of Rights was written as a "guarantee" that the federal government (actually, in the First Amendment, only Congress is mentioned, but that has already been extended to all "government") must guarantee our civil rights, in this case, freedom of speech. Again, it only mentions the government and not private businesses. But, by standing by and willfully, knowingly watching the systematic denial of freedom of speech, a civil right, by private businesses against a certain class of individuals, isn't our government (our guarantor) complicit in that violation? Of course they are!
If an armed, on-duty cop watches as a thug shoots and kills several people in public, and does nothing, is he complicit? Yes, and he (or she) will likely be charged by the government and his employer sued by the families of the victims. Would anyone argue that this would not be an acceptable course of action?
So, it would wind up being a matter of redress against the government for its complicity in allowing the civil rights of individuals to be denied, which is in direct violation of its constitutional duty.
This, of course, would have to be adjudicated by a federal court, and likely at the highest level, and the wheels of progress turn very slowly.
You can disagree with my opinion all you like, but I have been a victim of this civil rights abuse by Big Tech (and our government via its complicity) and have given the subject a great deal of thought over several years.
There are many, many lawsuits underway right now regarding this. A group of publishers I belong to was contacted by Liz Harrington, Donald Trump's spokesperson, a few months ago wanting to know if we would like to join The Donald in a class-action lawsuit against Big Tech. Because it would take so much time and effort to pursue the First Amendment angle, the antitrust and unfair business practice avenue is the likely course we will take, if it ever happens at all. We will see.
Dignan made the point I was going to bring up about the 1st amendment. What you're advocating for is that the government should step in and tell private businesses what they can or cannot say, which would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
No, that is not at all what I am saying! Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege. Our government has a responsibility to preserve the civil rights of ALL of us.
Would it be OK to stand by and permit the denial of the civil rights of black people? Women? Of course not!
And, this comment is way off the mark.... "What you're advocating for is that the government should step in and tell private businesses what they can or cannot say."
Negative. This isn't about the government telling businesses what they can and cannot say. It's about our government standing by and allowing businesses to deny the civil rights of individuals they feel like censoring. Big difference!
How long do you think it would take for the government to act upon a restaurant owner who put a sign on his front door, "We refuse to serve black people?" Probably about a nanosecond, and rightly so.
So, why is it OK for businesses to deny the civil rights of ANY class of people?
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2021 08:29 PM by Purple.)
(12-20-2021 08:28 PM)Purple Wrote: No, that is not at all what I am saying! Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege. Our government has a responsibility to preserve the civil rights of ALL of us.
Would it be OK to stand by and permit the denial of the civil rights of black people? Women? Of course not!
And, this comment is way off the mark.... "What you're advocating for is that the government should step in and tell private businesses what they can or cannot say."
Negative. This isn't about the government telling businesses what they can and cannot say. It's about our government standing by and allowing businesses to deny the civil rights of individuals they feel like censoring. Big difference!
How long do you think it would take for the government to act upon a restaurant owner who put a sign on his front door, "We refuse to serve black people?" Probably about a nanosecond, and rightly so.
So, why is it OK for businesses to deny the civil rights of ANY class of people?
Congress shall make no law [...] 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.
So, Congress cannot pass laws abridging speech. There is NOTHING IN THERE AT ALL about any non-governmental entity having any limits placed on their ability to let others speak.
---
How long do you think it would take for the government to act upon a restaurant owner who put a sign on his front door, "We refuse to serve black people?" Probably about a nanosecond, and rightly so.
---
That's the 14th amendment, and its "equal protection under the law" clause.
-----
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-----
But I suppose actually reading the constitution is a bridge too far for most people engaged in accusing others of violating their constitutional rights.
In any event, "[my] freedom of speech has been censored by Big Tech" is almost certainly a misappropration of the concept of free speech. Just because the first Amendment means the government cannot keep you from having or sharing ideas does NOT mean the government can force a third party to repeat your ideas on your behalf. People complain a lot about not getting to print their manifesto, but they're not entitled to access to a printing press.
(This post was last modified: 12-21-2021 01:11 AM by 94computerguy.)
Stop with the false equivalency. Being black/female/etc is not a choice, deciding to circulate unscientific information is a choice you make that can cause harm to others and some businesses don't want to take on that liability. If you don't want to wear a mask and are refused to be served at a restaurant, you could choose to put on a mask. If you walk into a restaurant and are refused service because of the color of your skin.....
![[Image: B87IyX6CEAEx_Ir?format=jpg&name=medium]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B87IyX6CEAEx_Ir?format=jpg&name=medium)
