Augie Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 What legal obligation do you think they have to accommodate any protest? One could argue the CBA does not prohibit this action. I think it's a load of crap because they are in uniform at their place of work representing their employer. But some will make that argument...
BringBackOrton Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 Let's try a hypothetical: A group of white supremacist NFL players wants to protest the fact that there are, in their opinion, too many black players in the league by performing some sort of peaceful pre-game demonstration. Do you believe the teams and the league would have the same legal obligation to accommodate such a protest as they do the current protest by certain African-American players? I don't think so. What legal obligation are you referring to? Does anyone know anything about anything anymore?
Augie Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 Let's try a hypothetical: A group of white supremacist NFL players wants to protest the fact that there are, in their opinion, too many black players in the league by performing some sort of peaceful pre-game demonstration. Do you believe the teams and the league would have the same legal obligation to accommodate such a protest as they do the current protest by certain African-American players? I don't think so. You make a very good point for why they should not allow any of these "protests".
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 What legal obligation are you referring to? Does anyone know anything about anything anymore? Not if they're a leftist, they don't.
mannc Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 What legal obligation do you think they have to accommodate any protest? That's a very good question. The answer probably depends upon the time, place and manner of the protest, the content of the protest, the terms of the CBA, the terms of the player contracts, the league rules, and how those rules have been applied and interpreted in the past. I would suggest that the more offensive and obnoxious the protest (I understand that's subjective), the more likely it is that the league or the teams could successfully prohibit it under one or more of these agreements.
Dorkington Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) White supremacist demonstrations *generally* falls under hate speech, whereas taking a knee to protest racism within the criminal justice system isn't. So that comparison, imo, falls short pretty quickly. Frankly I'd compare it to players of various sports that have done various religious gestures either during, or near, the anthem. Edited October 18, 2017 by Dorkington
mannc Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 You make a very good point for why they should not allow any of these "protests". You're right. It potentially cuts both ways.
boyst Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 White supremacist demonstrations *generally* falls under hate speech, whereas taking a knee to protest racism within the criminal justice system isn't. So that comparison, imo, falls short pretty quickly. Frankly I'd compare it to players of various sports that have done various religious gestures either during, or near, the anthem, in a variety of sports. that is because you hate it, your emotion. There's nothing wrong with hate speech if that's what you would like to call it. I would like to protect it as best I could and the soldiers out there on the battlefield are protecting that right as we speak, defending hate speech
Augie Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 You're right. It potentially cuts both ways. ...so it should never be allowed. It doesn't matter if you agree with the cause or not. It's inappropriate. Period.
mannc Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 ...so it should never be allowed. It doesn't matter if you agree with the cause or not. It's inappropriate. Period.That's one possible approach, but I'm not sure if it works under the current CBA, etc
boyst Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Just because it's under the CBA does not mean it should not be allowed or should be allowed. If some players wanted to unite before the game by getting on both knees and saying a prayer, or bowing to Mecca, or where Isis Flags on their undershirt... We must allow that as well, CBA and all
Augie Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 That's one possible approach, but I'm not sure if it works under the current CBA, etc Then you forgo the $5.9 million paid to have them on the field and you keep them in the locker room where they used to be. Problem solved.
mannc Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Then you forgo the $5.9 million paid to have them on the field and you keep them in the locker room where they used to be. Problem solved.I don't understand.
Augie Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Just because it's under the CBA does not mean it should not be allowed or should be allowed. If some players wanted to unite before the game by getting on both knees and saying a prayer, or bowing to Mecca, or where Isis Flags on their undershirt... We must allow that as well, CBA and all I have questions about what rule adjustments are allowed within the CBA. Surely not EVERYTHING is legislated there. There has to be room to adjust on the fly for a million different little things that come up. How does this fit in? I don't understand. Until not too long ago (6-7 years?), they were not on the field for the anthem. They were still in the locker rooms doing football stuff. The military liked the idea of them out there "honoring the flag", so they agreed to pay them to come out earlier to do so. Well, that's not quite what they were expecting.... Not that I care about that, I don't like the slippery slope.
mannc Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) I have questions about what rule adjustments are allowed within the CBA. Surely not EVERYTHING is legislated there. There has to be room to adjust on the fly for a million different little things that come up. How does this fit in? Not clear to me. A unionized employer has the right to unilaterally change certain less important work rules, while other things have to be collectively bargained. It's possible that the teams or the league could unilaterally enact and enforce a "no protest" rule, but I'm not certain. Unless there was a rule change, though, I doubt they could cut (or even deactivate) a player for protesting. The league does have some leeway here, but they also don't want to risk some sort of mass action by the players, where they say "If you punish one of us for not standing for the anthem, then none of us will stand for the anthem." I don't think either side wants something like that, so they're being very careful. Meanwhile, Trump is doing everything he can to inflame the situation. Until not too long ago (6-7 years?), they were not on the field for the anthem. They were still in the locker rooms doing football stuff. The military liked the idea of them out there "honoring the flag", so they agreed to pay them to come out earlier to do so. Well, that's not quite what they were expecting.... Not that I care about that, I don't like the slippery slope. IMO, a better solution would be to just do away with the anthem at NFL games. It really has no place there anyway. Save it for the Olympics...And this is a whole 'nother issue, but I don't like the US Military using my tax dollars to pay NFL owners to play the national anthem before games. But that's just me... Edited October 19, 2017 by mannc
Marv's Neighbor Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Maybe I can do that? I can't play either!
Augie Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Owners own and players play. That's how I lean. If you want to protest, fine. Do it on your own time, not while representing me. If you do it on my time, in my uniform, in my workplace in front of my "clients", be prepared to suffer the consequences. Again, slippery slope. I'm ALL for equality, but who's to say it's not next used for, in that example, white supremacists causes. I'm NOT against the cause (quite the opposite) but it's folly to allow this to continue. I'm sure the legal aspect is not that simple, but it should be. I like the anthem at games, and I think the best solution is to keep the players in the locker room the way it used to be. They don't need that $5.9 mil, and I'm not with down with eliminating it (or paying for it). P.S. - Jerry Jones, to my knowledge, didn't say he would cut or deactivate (too late for that anyway), he said he wouldn't play them. Cutting your nose off to spite your face, but if he had the balls to do it, that would be the first time I liked anything about him.
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Let's try a hypothetical: A group of white supremacist NFL players wants to protest the fact that there are, in their opinion, too many black players in the league by performing some sort of peaceful pre-game demonstration. Do you believe the teams and the league would have the same legal obligation to accommodate such a protest as they do the current protest by certain African-American players? I don't think so. Let's try a hypothetical that actually bears a resemblance to the actual: a group of white supremacist NFL players want to protest the fact that there are, in their opinion, too many laws and regulations benefiting minorities (scholarships, hate crime laws, affirmative action, EEOC, etc.) at the expense of whites, and want to protest the fact by performing some sort of peaceful pre-game demonstration. Because THAT - protesting government/social policy not related to the league during league events - is an accurate hypothetical. And in that hypothetical, I absolutely would expect the league to provide for their protest to the same degree that they allow any other protest. Because I care about the principles of equal protection and freedom of speech, even for those that I vehemently disagree with, disparage, and loathe.
Augie Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Let's try a hypothetical that actually bears a resemblance to the actual: a group of white supremacist NFL players want to protest the fact that there are, in their opinion, too many laws and regulations benefiting minorities (scholarships, hate crime laws, affirmative action, EEOC, etc.) at the expense of whites, and want to protest the fact by performing some sort of peaceful pre-game demonstration. Because THAT - protesting government/social policy not related to the league during league events - is an accurate hypothetical. And in that hypothetical, I absolutely would expect the league to provide for their protest to the same degree that they allow any other protest. Because I care about the principles of equal protection and freedom of speech, even for those that I vehemently disagree with, disparage, and loathe. It seems so obvious, so why is it so hard? I have some thoughts, but.....
Recommended Posts