SALT LAKE CITY — Aubrey Huff is no longer welcome.
He finished the 2010 MLB season ranked seventh in National League MVP voting. He was arguably San Francisco’s best hitter and undeniably contributed to the Giants’ victory in the 2010 World Series. But on Monday, The Athletic reported Huff won’t be coming back with the rest of that team to celebrate its 10-year anniversary.
Why not?
Because since his retirement following another World Series title with the Giants in 2012, Huff has gained notoriety for his controversial politics and social media commentary. His Twitter feed is a monsoon of in-your-face political content, featuring a steady downpour of arguments, vulgarities and stick-figure cartoons that generally follow what his bio says: “I’m a critically acclaimed stick figure artist, who’s politically incorrect. Love God, Country, & support toxic masculinity!”
Huff released a statement that called his musings “satirical, and sarcastic” while saying the Giants banned him because of not only because of his humor, but also his support of President Donald Trump.
His statement, which ends with #MAGA2020, seems to conflate his support for Trump with his social media posts. By his interpretation, it seems, the posts are examples of his support for what Trump represents.
“... While I’m disappointed the Giants are so opposed to President Trump, and our constitutional rights that they’d uninvite me to my team’s reunion,” his statement reads, “it shows me that now more than ever we have to stand up for our 1st amendment rights.”
Huff seems to be donning the mantle of a political martyr — of a man whose sacred rights have been stolen because of who he supports and the policies he believes in. Something like a Trumpian version of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. But Huff’s detractors — many of whom, to be sure, are not Trump supporters — don’t buy it. The problem isn’t his support for Trump, as much as they disagree with him.
The problem, they argue, is that his posts aren’t even political. They’re just gross.
So where is the line between freedom of speech and an appropriate level of respect? And what are the consequences of crossing that line? Is Huff’s behavior really a way to back the president? Or are Huff’s critics correct that his banishment is not (at the very least wholly) political at all?
The Giants said nothing about politics in their statement, citing “... multiple comments on social media that are unacceptable and run counter to the values of our organization” — though that line is vague enough that politics could be inferred. Nevertheless, team officials assured The Athletic’s Andrew Baggarly that their decision is not based on politics, but on crossing the line of “misogyny, vulgarity and common decency.”
Some doubted that explanation.
Like Fox Sports personality Clay Travis, who called it “insane” for the Giants to disinvite him “because he’s a (Donald Trump) supporter.” His concern hinged on the precedent set by such a move, which he said “is impossible to evenly and fairly apply going forward.”
Others doubted Travis’ rationale.
“It’s your mouth, not your MAGA hat and politics, that got you barred,” veteran baseball writer Claire Smith said on Twitter. “Too bad you can’t see that words hurt, and your attempt at sarcasm turned into misogyny and racism. That has nothing to do with who you vote for. It has to do with common decency and the lack thereof.”
So the question to be tried in the court of public opinion, then, is whether Huff’s conduct is abhorrent enough — irrespective of politics — to merit his banishment. If it pleases the court, here are the main pieces of evidence against him:
In late November, Huff invited controversy twice in two days. It started when he quote-tweeted a story about former New York Giants linebacker Michael Strahan paying his wife alimony, which he captioned with “... No way women who have never threw a touchdown pass, hit a game winning 3, or hit a 2-0 slider deserve half of a mans hard earned money just for having his babies,” along with an angry-looking emoji. He followed it up 12 minutes later with his more general thoughts on marriage.
“I believe n marriage the way it was in the old days when women had pride n being a stay at home mom & making sure her man is satisfied providing for the family,” he wrote. “Marriage has become a biz 4 women looking 2 get rich off a successful man.”
The next day, he posted an image of himself holding a thoroughly shot-up paper silhouette of a person. He’d taken his sons shooting, he explained, so they’d be prepared in the “unlikely event” that Bernie Sanders defeats Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
“In which case,” he continued, “knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must.”
In January, he once again became a talking point when, in response to the U.S. strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, he tweeted about flying to Iran to kidnap Iranian women — “about 10 each” — and bring them back to the U.S. so that they may “fan us and feed us grapes, amongst other things,” followed by a smiling devil emoji.
After substantial backlash, he deleted that tweet and lamented the perceived disintegration of people’s senses of humor. “I simply wanted 2 say I’d go there 2 rescue them & bring them back 2 the states. And they would be so thankful 2 escape that hell that they’d fan me & feed me grapes. Never said rape!” he assured observers, along with a gif of an animated penguin pointing furiously at a sign that reads “IT WAS A JOKE.”
He followed that up with a stick figure drawing of how he imagined the “grateful Iranian women” would treat a man who liberated them from “that (expletive)” and “the (expletives) that beat them.” It features a man in a lounge chair surrounded by three women, all of whom are drawn with lewd features. One fans him, one feeds him grapes and one rubs his feet. With comic book-like speech bubbles, one of the women tells him she’s “forever grateful,” while another says “Anything for you Huffdaddy.”
“Welcome to the greatest country on the planet America,” his character responds in part. “A little more pressure on the feet there sweetheart!”
A little over a week later, the Giants hired Major League Baseball’s first full-time female coach, Alyssa Nakken. She played four years of college softball at Cal State Sacramento, where she was named to the All-Pacific Coast Softball Conference team four times. She’s worked for the Giants since 2014, during which time she earned a master’s degree in sports management from the University of San Francisco.
Huff was not impressed.
In one tweet, he said the situation has #MeToo “written all over it.” In a follow-up, he wrote he “Couldn’t imagine taking baseball instruction from an ex female softball player” and tagged prominent Giants players like Brandon Crawford and Buster Posey. “Have fun with that,” he told them alongside a confused-looking emoji.
Huff defends these comments as appropriate humor.
Even if you disagree, some have called the decision to ban him misguided nonetheless. Like MLB Network insider Jon Heyman.
“I think Huff should be included in their celebration,” he tweeted. “There’s no hiding that he was a key member of their 2010 WS winning team.”
Supporters of the Giants’ decision, meanwhile, argue Huff’s posts go beyond politics or political correctness and are representative of problematic, insulting behavior. Humor, they say, is not a legitimate excuse.
“Ah yes, the ole ‘MY RACISM AND MISOGYNY WERE JOKES’ defense,” sportswriter and radio host Julie DiCaro tweeted. “Women know it well.”
The controversy arrives in a sports world embattled by accusations of discrimination from both sides of the political aisle. Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, is the poster child on the left, with supporters arguing the NFL blackballed him because he knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality in America, enraging some fans who viewed it as disrespectful. Huff even chimed in on the controversy in 2017, though he didn’t mention anybody trampling on Kaepernick’s right to free expression. He argued instead that Kaepernick just wasn’t a good enough player to merit the unwanted attention, so NFL teams were within their rights to keep him away.
Kaepernick doesn’t exactly have an equal on the right, but the closest comparison might be Huff (at least after the last few days) or Curt Schilling, formerly of the Boston Red Sox. Like Huff, Schilling is a vocal Trump supporter who’s encountered heavy criticism for his social media posts, including one that compares Muslims to Nazis and another featuring a photo of a T-shirt that reads “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required,” which he captioned, “OK, so much awesome here … .”
This, too, against a backdrop in which prominent athletes regularly boycott their championship team’s visit to the White House, viewing their presence as a political statement equal to their absence. All of which is to say it’s difficult not to filter the Huff situation through a political lens. Huff himself made this clear in his statement.
“And just because I might not share some of your political views (which are stupid),” he wrote, “I still respect your right to express them. #MAGA2020.”
He infused the conversation with politics by adding a hashtag supporting Trump, and he insulted anyone who disagrees with him. But his point is that regardless, this is about something more important — about what people should be allowed to say, and what consequences they should face as a result.
Huff called on the First Amendment, which ensures American practice of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition free of government limitations; it doesn’t compel a private organization to invite people to its functions.
But this technicality matters little. The question is not about a literal violation of Huff’s freedom of speech, but a spiritual violation. About an American value Huff believes the Giants are trampling, even if they’re doing so legally.
The Giants, meanwhile, have stood firmly behind their decision. They, too, have access to the First Amendment. And they’re using it to tell Huff he isn’t welcome.
You have the evidence. You have the context. Now it’s up to you to decide.