So what is the players union stance on average dudes yelling rude things at multimillionaire entertainers?
Edit: so I'm not trying to excuse racism or homophobic slurs yelled at these dudes. People should get ejected from the venue for being that kind of antisocial. But I mean come on. This is a dude with massive wealth and power and status. If it's a hostile workplace it's properly addressed by union and management, and having players threaten fans is not, imo, sympathetic in the slightest.
Let's unpack the lack of sympathy shown NBA players.
Argument 1: "they're paid to play and put up with racist abuse from fans!" So as long as someone pays for your services, you must put up with demeaning, dehumanizing treatment from patrons? That payment does not entitle fans to view players like Leo's character views his slave fighters in Django. It doesn't entitle them to say that dehumanizing slave shit that Utah fan said. It doesn't entitle some kid to run up and physically touch Westbrook, which happened a few weeks ago (Westbrook took the kid and his parent aside to chat with them about this during a TV break). If someone gropes or screams racist remarks at you at your service job, is that not actionable? Should a waiter smile and let it happen, because the customer can just throw money in their face? Is money worth more than human dignity? The whole point of racism is that money doesn't buy freedom or equal treatment. You're still a subhuman in their eyes.
Argument 2: "focus on the game, not the fans." The entire point of courtside seats and the allure of attending live NBA games in general is that there is that give-and-take between fans and players. As I said previously this is super ingrained and beloved in the NBA. Players and fans talk and interact a lot. Should a player meanmugging the courtside fans, a regular occurrence, earn them an ejection? Should a sneering smirk after a made basket constitute hostility?
Argument 3: "players are held to a higher standard than fans." I don't see this as anything other than a double standard excuse for white people to publicly treat black people as subhuman. A couple drunk white men should be able to shout the n-word at an opponent and the black player should be forced to take it without complaint because...?
The solution is obvious, and that is to kick these fans who cross the line out. Why it immediately turned to blaming the victim is also obvious to me.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Argument 4: the power balance is entirely weighted toward the crazy rich player, a guy who can brush off a $25,000 fine and not even notice the impact.
To clarify, I think that Westbrook's fine was completely justified within the letter of the NBA's enforcement. After Malice in the Palace any escalation is scary, even if I feel that it's justified.
Unrelated(?), but I don't think that money makes racist remarks by the person not in power tolerable. I find it sickening because, given the fact that Westbrook has it all, it's nakedly an assertion that despite Westbrook's status and money and power he's still just an n-word. Same thinking as poor white farmers looking at slaves and freedmen. It is a stark, ugly reminder that a person's skin is ultimately what is measured when talking about power.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I'm not saying that they are tolerable, I'm saying that comparisons with slavery are never going to stick on professional sports, since the most visible athletes are rich.
To generally contextualize the discussion a little bit, I'm talking about Utah v Westbrook:
Once the fans in the area — including Shane Keisel, the fan permanently banned from all Vivint Smart Home Arena events in the future — started making derogatory comments at Westbrook, Westbrook walked over to arena security to point out Keisel. Security pulled Keisel to the tunnel, where he presumably gave the same story he later told ESPN: he told Westbrook to “ice those knees up!” rather than telling Westbrook "to get down on your knees like you used to,” as Westbrook alleged.
A subsequent investigation, including video evidence and eyewitness accounts, confirmed Westbrook’s version of events. That resulted in Keisel’s permanent ban.
...a video that surfaced Tuesday — posted by the Deseret News — showed instances where a Jazz fan yelled derogatory remarks, including the racially-tinged term “boy,” at Westbrook in last year’s playoff series between the two teams. Security was called over in that incident as well, but no ejections were reported at the time.
"He hit me," Westbrook said after the game, via The Oklahoman's Maddie Lee. "So I told his dad, be careful man you can't have your son just hitting random people. I don't know him, he don't know me. So I just let him know ... You just gotta control your kids. It's that simple ... Watch the game ... Have fun, enjoy."
Westbrook added that fans have a bit too much freedom courtside.
"For all the fans though, there's too much leeway for the fans to be able to touch the players and get away with it," Westbrook added. "We can't react. You know, do what we need to do to protect ourselves. So it's important to understand -- kids, whoever it is -- dad, moms, they can say what they want as long as it's respectful. But the touching to me is off-limits.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Between athletes it is just great. Jalen Ramsey's trash talk GQ piece was maybe the best bit of media out of the NFL last year. Fuck all these boring "you know he's really good and you got to respect that, I'm just gonna focus on my game, go out give 110%, it's a team game we gotta play as a team" interviews. "it's the same old Jay. We don't need luck, Jay will throw us the ball...proof is in the pudding." That's how you answer an interview question about your biggest rivals QB. Sports are entertainment and you need heels as well as babyfaces.
I also really enjoy fans who shit talk the opposing team, its kind of hard to appreciate it in the US, because fans in the US are pretty fucking dull. With the exception of college sports where you sometimes get coordinated chants. "Sieve Sieve Sieve" in college hockey for example. But soccer chants can be just phenomenal.
You’re teeth are offside, your teeth offside, your teeth are offside, Luis Suarez you’re teeth are offside. (Suarez has bit several opposing players over the years)
Chelsea, wherever you may be, keep your wife from John Terry (Chelsea Cpt John Terry had an affair with his team mates girlfriend)
Stand up if you pay your tax(A manager, i forget who, was charged with tax dodging)
Some of them cross the line (Ji Sung Park), Plane Crash ones) etc. But man a stadium of people singing shit at the teams is way more exciting, than the jumbotron "Make Some Noise", "follow the queen", "kiss cam" bullshit we have in the US.
If players don't like dealing with it, there are plenty of parks they can play sports in. As people remind constantly when a player gets suspended/banned for some off the court misconduct(particularly if they aren't charge/convicted) - no one has a right to play in stadiums making millions of dollars.
Let's unpack the lack of sympathy shown NBA players.
Argument 1: "they're paid to play and put up with racist abuse from fans!" So as long as someone pays for your services, you must put up with demeaning, dehumanizing treatment from patrons? That payment does not entitle fans to view players like Leo's character views his slave fighters in Django. It doesn't entitle them to say that dehumanizing slave shit that Utah fan said. It doesn't entitle some kid to run up and physically touch Westbrook, which happened a few weeks ago (Westbrook took the kid and his parent aside to chat with them about this during a TV break). If someone gropes or screams racist remarks at you at your service job, is that not actionable? Should a waiter smile and let it happen, because the customer can just throw money in their face? Is money worth more than human dignity? The whole point of racism is that money doesn't buy freedom or equal treatment. You're still a subhuman in their eyes.
Argument 2: "focus on the game, not the fans." The entire point of courtside seats and the allure of attending live NBA games in general is that there is that give-and-take between fans and players. As I said previously this is super ingrained and beloved in the NBA. Players and fans talk and interact a lot. Should a player meanmugging the courtside fans, a regular occurrence, earn them an ejection? Should a sneering smirk after a made basket constitute hostility?
Argument 3: "players are held to a higher standard than fans." I don't see this as anything other than a double standard excuse for white people to publicly treat black people as subhuman. A couple drunk white men should be able to shout the n-word at an opponent and the black player should be forced to take it without complaint because...?
The solution is obvious, and that is to kick these fans who cross the line out. Why it immediately turned to blaming the victim is also obvious to me.
I think everybody in this thread is in full and unwavering agreement that racist abuse of a player should lead to ejection of the fan. In most cases it should lead to a lengthy or permanent ban...let them yell racist shit at their TV from now on. If specific venues are failing to make that happen, this is an issue that I think all of us are in full and unwavering agreement needs to be addressed.
But when talking about "blaming the victim" let's be clear here: once a player threatens physical violence against a fan (or, worse, actually commits it) then there is now another victim. Because while we all agree that racial abuse is unacceptable and must be addressed...see above...about the only way that is not acceptable for that to happen is for a player to assault somebody over words. Nobody is saying it should be taken "without complaint." They're saying that complaint should be through security, through the union, through the league, through the media, whatever. But just straight saying that you're gonna fuck up a fan (and his wife) is the wrong answer.
Between athletes it is just great. Jalen Ramsey's trash talk GQ piece was maybe the best bit of media out of the NFL last year. Fuck all these boring "you know he's really good and you got to respect that, I'm just gonna focus on my game, go out give 110%, it's a team game we gotta play as a team" interviews. "it's the same old Jay. We don't need luck, Jay will throw us the ball...proof is in the pudding." That's how you answer an interview question about your biggest rivals QB. Sports are entertainment and you need heels as well as babyfaces.
I also really enjoy fans who shit talk the opposing team, its kind of hard to appreciate it in the US, because fans in the US are pretty fucking dull. With the exception of college sports where you sometimes get coordinated chants. "Sieve Sieve Sieve" in college hockey for example. But soccer chants can be just phenomenal.
You’re teeth are offside, your teeth offside, your teeth are offside, Luis Suarez you’re teeth are offside. (Suarez has bit several opposing players over the years)
Chelsea, wherever you may be, keep your wife from John Terry (Chelsea Cpt John Terry had an affair with his team mates girlfriend)
Stand up if you pay your tax(A manager, i forget who, was charged with tax dodging)
Some of them cross the line (Ji Sung Park), Plane Crash ones) etc. But man a stadium of people singing shit at the teams is way more exciting, than the jumbotron "Make Some Noise", "follow the queen", "kiss cam" bullshit we have in the US.
If players don't like dealing with it, there are plenty of parks they can play sports in. As people remind constantly when a player gets suspended/banned for some off the court misconduct(particularly if they aren't charge/convicted) - no one has a right to play in stadiums making millions of dollars.
I think there is a line you have to walk though. Cause while I agree anf think the fan engagement is fantastic when chanting trash talk, there are some things that just shouldn’t be part of public discourse however it happens. Because it is possible to cross the line from trying to have fun to trying to cause harm.
I think most of us agree that “stereo-type” or durogatory trash talk should be punished, but I’m on the fence about othe types.
I generally keep my trash talking pretty mundane because I more enjoy the needling, I’m better than you type stuff, but some people like to be more crass and maybe that’s ok. Like a well placed fuck off, or kiss my ass could easily be considered way over the top in some settings (and borderline sexual harrassment for some language), but if everyone is on the same page and is ok with it should it still be frowned upon?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Let's unpack the lack of sympathy shown NBA players.
Argument 1: "they're paid to play and put up with racist abuse from fans!" So as long as someone pays for your services, you must put up with demeaning, dehumanizing treatment from patrons? That payment does not entitle fans to view players like Leo's character views his slave fighters in Django. It doesn't entitle them to say that dehumanizing slave shit that Utah fan said. It doesn't entitle some kid to run up and physically touch Westbrook, which happened a few weeks ago (Westbrook took the kid and his parent aside to chat with them about this during a TV break). If someone gropes or screams racist remarks at you at your service job, is that not actionable? Should a waiter smile and let it happen, because the customer can just throw money in their face? Is money worth more than human dignity? The whole point of racism is that money doesn't buy freedom or equal treatment. You're still a subhuman in their eyes.
Argument 2: "focus on the game, not the fans." The entire point of courtside seats and the allure of attending live NBA games in general is that there is that give-and-take between fans and players. As I said previously this is super ingrained and beloved in the NBA. Players and fans talk and interact a lot. Should a player meanmugging the courtside fans, a regular occurrence, earn them an ejection? Should a sneering smirk after a made basket constitute hostility?
Argument 3: "players are held to a higher standard than fans." I don't see this as anything other than a double standard excuse for white people to publicly treat black people as subhuman. A couple drunk white men should be able to shout the n-word at an opponent and the black player should be forced to take it without complaint because...?
The solution is obvious, and that is to kick these fans who cross the line out. Why it immediately turned to blaming the victim is also obvious to me.
I think it’s a bit unfair to say racism is the only reason people are calling out Weatbrook’s behavior. We can all agree that epithets and racial slurs have no place in sports, but I just don’t see any way you can excuse how he reacted. He was threatening violence.
If this interaction had occurred on the street the racist douchebag would have been legally innocent (maybe some anti hate speech laws, not sure), but Westbrook would 100% be guilty of at least intimidation. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Regardless of why Westbrook acted that way, he still threatened to beat the shit out of someone. That is not ok.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Argument 4: the power balance is entirely weighted toward the crazy rich player, a guy who can brush off a $25,000 fine and not even notice the impact.
On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable setting a standard of "it's okay to be a dick to someone if they have more power than you." Like, I'm not going to shed too many tears for a rich guy who gets shouted at by an angry store clerk. The rich guy will get over it. But that doesn't mean the store clerk's behavior is socially acceptable, or should be encouraged. Manners are universal.
Trash talk is okay to the extent that the participating parties agree that it's okay. If players are not okay with being yelled at by opponents or fans, then trash talk should not be allowed, because it ceases to be a fun addition to the game and just becomes about dehumanizing others.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Argument 4: the power balance is entirely weighted toward the crazy rich player, a guy who can brush off a $25,000 fine and not even notice the impact.
On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable setting a standard of "it's okay to be a dick to someone if they have more power than you." Like, I'm not going to shed too many tears for a rich guy who gets shouted at by an angry store clerk. The rich guy will get over it. But that doesn't mean the store clerk's behavior is socially acceptable, or should be encouraged. Manners are universal.
Trash talk is okay to the extent that the participating parties agree that it's okay. If players are not okay with being yelled at by opponents or fans, then trash talk should not be allowed, because it ceases to be a fun addition to the game and just becomes about dehumanizing others.
The “all parties must agree” rule is tough as the number of people involved gets large though. I mean are they going to distribute a list of players who don’t mind good natured ribbing from fans versus players who like absolute isolation/silence? If there’s awlays one person who doesn’t like trash talk at all does that mean trash talk just has to be banned?
I think you can set out reasonable criteria for things that are considered hostile/harassment and things that are considered normal engagement without having to consider every opinion of every person involved.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Professional spectator sports are not meant to be emotionally sterile environments. They exist specifically to inflame emotional enmity.
Some amount of verbal abuse is expected and reasonable in that environment. Same way that all contact sports evolve unwritten rules about how much physical altercation is allowed immediately after play has stopped. If I shove someone down to the ground after a meeting in an office, I’m gonna get fired and probably arrested. If I do it right after the whistle at a hockey game when we've been battling, barely anyone will notice. It's against the rules by the letter of the law, but de facto it's allowed because it's just not practical to demand everyone turn it on and off in the heat of the moment.
The same thing goes for fans. Fans are expected to be emotionally involved. Making money off this emotional involvement is the entire reason the exhibition exists, unlike children's sports which are there for the development of the children (in theory). We can and should allow professional sports environments to develop their own de facto standards of fan conduct, even if by the letter of the law saying anything mean is emotional abuse. And it's perfectly OK for that standard to be a little vague and not easily described in a single-sentence rule. Racist or deeply personal stuff is over the line. Chanting a goalie's name after he gives up a few goals is not. We can decide cases in between as needed.
I think privileging the players viewpoint too much is a mistake.
I'm reminded of the Cubs DJ who got fired for playing Smack My B***h Up, after Aroldis Chapmen left the mound a couple years back. Why is that song an issue, ohh well Chapman had a 30 game DV suspension for choking his girlfriend and firing a gun in his house.
I'm sure Chapman didn't like that song one bit, but -again if US sports weren't so dull- he should have had stuff like that sung and chanted at him all season long. He would have hated it, and no one should have cared.
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I think privileging the players viewpoint too much is a mistake.
I'm reminded of the Cubs DJ who got fired for playing Smack My B***h Up, after Aroldis Chapmen left the mound a couple years back. Why is that song an issue, ohh well Chapman had a 30 game DV suspension for choking his girlfriend and firing a gun in his house.
I'm sure Chapman didn't like that song one bit, but -again if US sports weren't so dull- he should have had stuff like that sung and chanted at him all season long. He would have hated it, and no one should have cared.
Are you sure fans weren't chanting at him all season long? When I used to go to Cubs games and get cheap bleacher tix in the mid-90s, one of the chants I remember most was bleacher bums chanting "Barry beats his wiiii-iiife, Barry beats his wiii-iiife" at Barry Bonds. Every time he was in town.
Cubs fans are unlikely to turn on one of their own, but I'd bet fans in other cities had plenty to say to Aroldis.
Posts
Edit: so I'm not trying to excuse racism or homophobic slurs yelled at these dudes. People should get ejected from the venue for being that kind of antisocial. But I mean come on. This is a dude with massive wealth and power and status. If it's a hostile workplace it's properly addressed by union and management, and having players threaten fans is not, imo, sympathetic in the slightest.
Argument 1: "they're paid to play and put up with racist abuse from fans!" So as long as someone pays for your services, you must put up with demeaning, dehumanizing treatment from patrons? That payment does not entitle fans to view players like Leo's character views his slave fighters in Django. It doesn't entitle them to say that dehumanizing slave shit that Utah fan said. It doesn't entitle some kid to run up and physically touch Westbrook, which happened a few weeks ago (Westbrook took the kid and his parent aside to chat with them about this during a TV break). If someone gropes or screams racist remarks at you at your service job, is that not actionable? Should a waiter smile and let it happen, because the customer can just throw money in their face? Is money worth more than human dignity? The whole point of racism is that money doesn't buy freedom or equal treatment. You're still a subhuman in their eyes.
Argument 2: "focus on the game, not the fans." The entire point of courtside seats and the allure of attending live NBA games in general is that there is that give-and-take between fans and players. As I said previously this is super ingrained and beloved in the NBA. Players and fans talk and interact a lot. Should a player meanmugging the courtside fans, a regular occurrence, earn them an ejection? Should a sneering smirk after a made basket constitute hostility?
Argument 3: "players are held to a higher standard than fans." I don't see this as anything other than a double standard excuse for white people to publicly treat black people as subhuman. A couple drunk white men should be able to shout the n-word at an opponent and the black player should be forced to take it without complaint because...?
The solution is obvious, and that is to kick these fans who cross the line out. Why it immediately turned to blaming the victim is also obvious to me.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Which makes all the slavery comparisons kinda hard to sell in any professional sport.
Unrelated(?), but I don't think that money makes racist remarks by the person not in power tolerable. I find it sickening because, given the fact that Westbrook has it all, it's nakedly an assertion that despite Westbrook's status and money and power he's still just an n-word. Same thinking as poor white farmers looking at slaves and freedmen. It is a stark, ugly reminder that a person's skin is ultimately what is measured when talking about power.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2019/03/13/jazz-fans-start-gofundme/
Scuttlebutt around the league is that Portland and Utah are the worst places for this kind of behavior
Also: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/russell-westbrook-turns-kid-touching-him-in-game-in-denver-into-a-great-teaching-moment/
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Any bad interaction that don't get a quick stop is a matter of security not being fast enough, which is a complaint for the organizers.
Between athletes it is just great. Jalen Ramsey's trash talk GQ piece was maybe the best bit of media out of the NFL last year. Fuck all these boring "you know he's really good and you got to respect that, I'm just gonna focus on my game, go out give 110%, it's a team game we gotta play as a team" interviews. "it's the same old Jay. We don't need luck, Jay will throw us the ball...proof is in the pudding." That's how you answer an interview question about your biggest rivals QB. Sports are entertainment and you need heels as well as babyfaces.
I also really enjoy fans who shit talk the opposing team, its kind of hard to appreciate it in the US, because fans in the US are pretty fucking dull. With the exception of college sports where you sometimes get coordinated chants. "Sieve Sieve Sieve" in college hockey for example. But soccer chants can be just phenomenal.
You’re teeth are offside, your teeth offside, your teeth are offside, Luis Suarez you’re teeth are offside. (Suarez has bit several opposing players over the years)
Chelsea, wherever you may be, keep your wife from John Terry (Chelsea Cpt John Terry had an affair with his team mates girlfriend)
Stand up if you pay your tax(A manager, i forget who, was charged with tax dodging)
Some of them cross the line (Ji Sung Park), Plane Crash ones) etc. But man a stadium of people singing shit at the teams is way more exciting, than the jumbotron "Make Some Noise", "follow the queen", "kiss cam" bullshit we have in the US.
If players don't like dealing with it, there are plenty of parks they can play sports in. As people remind constantly when a player gets suspended/banned for some off the court misconduct(particularly if they aren't charge/convicted) - no one has a right to play in stadiums making millions of dollars.
I think everybody in this thread is in full and unwavering agreement that racist abuse of a player should lead to ejection of the fan. In most cases it should lead to a lengthy or permanent ban...let them yell racist shit at their TV from now on. If specific venues are failing to make that happen, this is an issue that I think all of us are in full and unwavering agreement needs to be addressed.
But when talking about "blaming the victim" let's be clear here: once a player threatens physical violence against a fan (or, worse, actually commits it) then there is now another victim. Because while we all agree that racial abuse is unacceptable and must be addressed...see above...about the only way that is not acceptable for that to happen is for a player to assault somebody over words. Nobody is saying it should be taken "without complaint." They're saying that complaint should be through security, through the union, through the league, through the media, whatever. But just straight saying that you're gonna fuck up a fan (and his wife) is the wrong answer.
I think there is a line you have to walk though. Cause while I agree anf think the fan engagement is fantastic when chanting trash talk, there are some things that just shouldn’t be part of public discourse however it happens. Because it is possible to cross the line from trying to have fun to trying to cause harm.
I think most of us agree that “stereo-type” or durogatory trash talk should be punished, but I’m on the fence about othe types.
I generally keep my trash talking pretty mundane because I more enjoy the needling, I’m better than you type stuff, but some people like to be more crass and maybe that’s ok. Like a well placed fuck off, or kiss my ass could easily be considered way over the top in some settings (and borderline sexual harrassment for some language), but if everyone is on the same page and is ok with it should it still be frowned upon?
I think it’s a bit unfair to say racism is the only reason people are calling out Weatbrook’s behavior. We can all agree that epithets and racial slurs have no place in sports, but I just don’t see any way you can excuse how he reacted. He was threatening violence.
If this interaction had occurred on the street the racist douchebag would have been legally innocent (maybe some anti hate speech laws, not sure), but Westbrook would 100% be guilty of at least intimidation. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Regardless of why Westbrook acted that way, he still threatened to beat the shit out of someone. That is not ok.
On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable setting a standard of "it's okay to be a dick to someone if they have more power than you." Like, I'm not going to shed too many tears for a rich guy who gets shouted at by an angry store clerk. The rich guy will get over it. But that doesn't mean the store clerk's behavior is socially acceptable, or should be encouraged. Manners are universal.
Trash talk is okay to the extent that the participating parties agree that it's okay. If players are not okay with being yelled at by opponents or fans, then trash talk should not be allowed, because it ceases to be a fun addition to the game and just becomes about dehumanizing others.
The “all parties must agree” rule is tough as the number of people involved gets large though. I mean are they going to distribute a list of players who don’t mind good natured ribbing from fans versus players who like absolute isolation/silence? If there’s awlays one person who doesn’t like trash talk at all does that mean trash talk just has to be banned?
I think you can set out reasonable criteria for things that are considered hostile/harassment and things that are considered normal engagement without having to consider every opinion of every person involved.
Some amount of verbal abuse is expected and reasonable in that environment. Same way that all contact sports evolve unwritten rules about how much physical altercation is allowed immediately after play has stopped. If I shove someone down to the ground after a meeting in an office, I’m gonna get fired and probably arrested. If I do it right after the whistle at a hockey game when we've been battling, barely anyone will notice. It's against the rules by the letter of the law, but de facto it's allowed because it's just not practical to demand everyone turn it on and off in the heat of the moment.
The same thing goes for fans. Fans are expected to be emotionally involved. Making money off this emotional involvement is the entire reason the exhibition exists, unlike children's sports which are there for the development of the children (in theory). We can and should allow professional sports environments to develop their own de facto standards of fan conduct, even if by the letter of the law saying anything mean is emotional abuse. And it's perfectly OK for that standard to be a little vague and not easily described in a single-sentence rule. Racist or deeply personal stuff is over the line. Chanting a goalie's name after he gives up a few goals is not. We can decide cases in between as needed.
I'm reminded of the Cubs DJ who got fired for playing Smack My B***h Up, after Aroldis Chapmen left the mound a couple years back. Why is that song an issue, ohh well Chapman had a 30 game DV suspension for choking his girlfriend and firing a gun in his house.
I'm sure Chapman didn't like that song one bit, but -again if US sports weren't so dull- he should have had stuff like that sung and chanted at him all season long. He would have hated it, and no one should have cared.
Are you sure fans weren't chanting at him all season long? When I used to go to Cubs games and get cheap bleacher tix in the mid-90s, one of the chants I remember most was bleacher bums chanting "Barry beats his wiiii-iiife, Barry beats his wiii-iiife" at Barry Bonds. Every time he was in town.
Cubs fans are unlikely to turn on one of their own, but I'd bet fans in other cities had plenty to say to Aroldis.