oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
Assuming that these emails only became public because someone used the judicial to subpoena and then share them, would any constitutional rights come into play?
just to be clear: Dan Snyder is directly responsible for the release of some of those emails.
You didn't answer my question. 
The first amendment says the government can't stop you from exercising your free speech rights. If the government was using subpoenas to interfere with this exercise (eg using it to force disclosure of confidential news sources), there could be a conversation.
We're not even close to the constitution here. As far as we know, Gruden voluntarily resigned. He send unrestricted emails to private individuals and the emails got swept up in civil litigation. That's what he gets for being dumb enough to share his abhorrent views semi-publicly. Any time you send an email to someone you should understand that it could become public some day. Welcome to the last 25 years of history.
The only reason this discussion is happening is because there are other people who share Gruden's abhorrent views who are livid at the fact that anyone would pay any price for expressing these abhorrent views. These are the same people who think George Floyd deserved to die for passing a $20 counterfeit check, that Kyle Rittenhouse and other Meal Team 6 members should be able kill people without repercussions when they feel any fear, that Colin K and any other black athlete who took a knee is a "son of a *****" but that somehow someway there must be some argument that John Gruden should be privileged beyond reproach.
There is no reason to humor any of this. Not even Gruden is defending himself but you've got a bunch of white knights desperate to generate some sort of argument that he should be shielded. It's ridiculous and anyone defending him is a deplorable and an idiot.
Please tell us who you are by letting us know if you think we should be uncovering every rock to find a way to justify Gruden's actions.
