Quick civics lesson... (emphasis added).

If I stood up in my workplace and shouted for all to hear remarks similar to his, I would most likely be fired, not suspended. The first amendment says that the government cannot pass laws to abridge freedom of speech. Private businesses (such as my employer, the NHL...) may restrict speech in their workplace in what ever manner they choose.

You are correct and I agree as the same result may occur in my place of employment. However, the NHL is NOT his employer. The team employs him and if the team owner wanted to take internal action, that is fine as I'm sure it would get the support of the NHL should the issue go to arbitration.

There was also talk in the media about charges being brought against Avery. Where do they come up with this crap? At most, this is a civil matter that involves only one person who can determine whether to file or not. OTOH, if the comments, no matter how distasteful, were to be found as accurate, what then?

Now you're getting into how freedom of speech is really being abridged. There is a whole series of legislation that results in the government passing laws that restrict freedom of speech. Employment discrimination laws, "hostile work place" laws, harassment based on gender, national origin, religion, etc., laws, hate crime laws... all of these are laws that in their application have come to mean that a person can be prosecuted and put into prison based solely on what they say. Just because a law has good intentions does not make it a good law. With the incoming administration, this has no where to go but down.

That (a civil suit) would be an exercise in futility. The uncontrovertable fact, no matter how rudely stated, is that Elisha Cuthbert is "sloppy seconds"; and as a "public figure", she isn't immune from rude statements that are true.

True that the NHL isn't his direct employer, but the NHL is the body that has the collective bargaining agreement with the players union; there is certainly a clause that makes "in the best interest of the game" actions legitimate.

Very slippery slope. You are talking about an individual's personal opinion concerning another individual which did not involve any business actions of the NHL or the game of hockey.

Where do you draw a line? If a hockey player buys a piece of equipment from a company which is a sponsor of a NHL franchise and publicly slams the equipment and the company which sells it to the press, is he liable to be suspended "in the best interest of the game"?

I'm a firm believer that the more you make of something with which you disagree, the more exposure that individual's opinion gets.

Shame on Avery for being an ***. Shame on the press for being stupid enough to think his comments are news worthy (yet they refer to themselves as "journalists") and shame on the NHL for declaring themselves for making more of something than it should have been made.

This action by the holier-than-thou idiots is just another reason for intelligent folks to join P.O.O.P.

YouTube - How to poop :D

This cartoon also covers what I think of this statement:

Ah, no.

This version is better.

YouTube - How To Poop - English Subtitles