By JOHN JAMES MARSHALL/Designated Writers

You’d think that LeBron James would know better. You’d think that he’d recognize that almost every word he used in his interview about the recent NBA-China issue could be turned around and thrown right back at him.

You’d think that when he said Houston general manager Daryl Morey’s tweet in support of Hong Kong was “misinformed” and that Morey wasn’t educated about the issue, he would remember how often he speaks out or tweets about an issue in which the same could be said about him.

You’d think that the words he used in regards to Morey’s tweet (“so many people could have been harmed not only financially, physically, emotionally, spiritually”) would ring hollow, especially that first adverb.

You’d think that someone who wants us to believe that he’s such a social justice warrior wouldn’t be advocating against free speech, the most basic tenet of all liberties that Americans have and the people of China do not. You’d think THIS would be what James would be advocating for above all else.

You’d think that he wouldn’t say this with a straight face — “Yes, we all do have freedom of speech, but at times there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others and you’re only thinking about yourself” — but he did.

You’d think he’d stand behind what he originally said and not try to crawfish his way out of it, but he did by saying that it had been a difficult week for him. You’d think he’d know that every week is a difficult week for those fighting for their freedom, no matter what continent they are on. You’d think he wouldn’t say that Morey “could have waited a week” without everyone knowing what that meant.

You’d think that James, who tweeted 18 months ago that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” would stand behind a man who only said “Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.”

You’d think he wouldn’t be a hypocrite, but he is.

You’d think when it came down to Morey or Money, LeBron James would do the right thing.

But you’d be wrong.