ESPN suspended columnist Bill Simmons for violating its "journalistic standards" during a podcast in which he called NFL commissioner Roger Goodell a liar. While not everybody is a fan of Simmons's opinions, it's ESPN's reasoning for why he was suspended that has Twitter angrily asking one question: when did ESPN get journalistic standards?

ESPN suspended Simmons for not living up to its journalistic standards. Yes, the same network that reported on the showering habits of ex-St. Louis Rams defensive end Michael Sam. The same network that reportedly withdrew a documentary on concussions because it made the NFL look bad.

If ESPN had a reputation for by-the-book journalism, Simmons' suspension would make sense. Don't call somebody a liar if you can't prove it with facts. But ESPN doesn't have that reputation (SEE: First Take). Moreover, it pays Simmons for his opinions - he's a columnist, not a reporter.

But apparently the World Wide Leader doesn't like one of their paid opinion-writers writing an opinion about something it doesn't like. So it suspended Simmons for three weeks.

Three weeks. That's three times as long as Stephen A. Smith's suspension in August for making insensitive remarks about domestic violence, coincidentally stemming from discussing the same Ray Rice incident that now landed Simmons in hot water.

Simmons didn't make an insensitive remark, though. He gave his opinion, one that many people seem to share, that the NFL lied about its knowledge of the TMZ elevator tape. The difference, it seems, is that Simmons committed the cardinal sin of besmirching an entity that pays the network $15 billion.

Yes - Simmons dared his employer Monday to reprimand him after he called out Goodell in a profanity-laced tirade, and he threatened to "go public" if they did. OK, then suspend him for that. But when you suspend him on the premise of violating a set of "journalistic standards" that are inconsistent and arbitrarily enforced, you get a bunch of tweets like this: