This is bad journalism, for the reporter doesn't report the facts. What did Joakim Noah say? "Fag"? "Faggot"? "Queer"? How is the reader supposed to evaluate what was said (as well as the legitimacy of the punishment for saying it) without knowing what was said? How are people supposed to know what will get them in trouble with the PC police if they don't know what is getting others in trouble? Political correctness gets more absurd by the day. Philosophers, of all people, should be at the forefront of the effort to help journalists and laypeople understand the difference between using a term and mentioning a term. Earlier in this post, for example, I mentioned (i.e., referred to, talked about) the terms "fag," "faggot," and "queer." I didn't use any of them, as I would have if I were to say to the reporter, "You're a fag," or "You faggot," or "Do your job, you queer." Why can't reporters grasp this simple distinction?
Addendum: On second thought, maybe there's method to this madness. If your goal is to prevent anything even remotely offensive from being said about homosexuals, on the ground either that homosexuals are hypersensitive or that homosexuals constitute a protected victim class, then you will want to keep people ignorant about what is getting others in trouble. This will promote self-censorship, whereby people stifle themselves for fear of offending anyone. Is that what journalists want? Is that why they're not doing their job?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 