To Tweet or Not to Tweet

ZBU: To tweet or not to tweet is a thought that has become as prevalent as the famous Shakespeare quote once was. Thanks to social media, spur of the moment thoughts and instant reactions can be broadcast to the world. For an average guy like you or me, usually about 40 people in the world actually read what we have to say. For pro athletes, however, no matter how popular they are, thousands of people read every little thing they tweet and the more controversial the statement, the more publicity it gets. This of course is not rocket science and comes with the territory of being famous.

 It was no surprise then when Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones got destroyed by fans and media this week after tweeting "horrible" and "OMG" upon seeing Michael Sam, the NFL's first openly gay player, kiss his boyfriend after being drafted.

Now, to tweet or not to tweet is definitely a thought Jones should have had but clearly didn't. Nothing positive could have come from making such a discriminatory statement this day and age. I do, however, wonder if I agree with the Miami Dolphins then fining Jones, making him apologize and take educational classes. I understand that he represents the Dolphins brand and if we broadcast the companies we work for on social media and made comments like his, our companies would probably take action as well. But I guess what I'm getting at is if we are going to allow social media to exist and provide us with others' instant emotions and reactions, how can we regulate and verbally crucify people for what they have to say? Jones reacted to something not natural in his mind and (granted in a very juvenile way) he reacted. Should he have thought twice and kept those thoughts to himself? Probably. But should he have to? I don't know. There was a time when Michael Sam would have been forced to keep such a picture private. Who gets to play dictator and decide what thoughts and pictures should and shouldn't be revealed to the world? Just because someone has an unfavorable and even ignorant opinion that most won't agree with, does that mean he should not be entitled to one at all? An even better question is if social media didn't provide an outlet for virtual mobs to attack someone's opinion would the Dolphins even have taken such swift face-saving actions?  There are only opinions to serve as answers to these questions but when Hamlet asked whether or not he should be, I don't think he was worried about what everyone else thought he should do. So I guess in my opinion, to tweet or not to tweet is to be or not to be and that my friend is the question.

PAV: Love the Shakespearean analogy. What this issue comes down to is the Dolphins saving face, as you said. They can't continue successfully as a brand while allowing one of their employees to be outwardly homophobic. If they allow the tweet to go unpunished, then they are enablers of ignorance and society doesn't like institutions like that. What they did was best for their brand, even though they are essentially impeaching on said player's constitutional and sovereign rights. I don't think anyone's opinion should be regulated and at the same time I don't think opinions like Don Jones or Don Sterling's should be taken seriously. There are obviously people in the world who feel a certain way about things they are either ignorant to or afraid of, i.e. black people and gays.

The official statement from the Miami Dolphins and LA Clippers should be "Who cares what these two-bit scum bags think of black men and gay men. They don't speak for our organization as a whole and never will." I realize Donald Sterling, as an owner, essentially speaks directly for his organization, but his opinion is his opinion and he has no power to turn anyone away from the gates at the Staples Center.

To answer your question: Tweet. Tweet away until you are only followed by the ignorant few who share your idiotic ideals. The rest of us will continue to adapt to a changing and improving world. You can stay dumb.