NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy

[mannc]

13 minutes ago, napmaster said:

 

 

The NFL can mandate whatever speech they like and it will be protected.   Players can choose to drop out of the league, or fans can stop supporting the league and put them out of business.

 

Not necessarily.  The players are members of a union and have rights under their CBA that most workers don’t have.  

 

You’re probably right, though, that the 1st Amendment, which protects citizens against state action, doesn’t help the players much.  But the situation might be different if the owners are acting at the behest of the President of the United States, or in response to threats he’s made against the league.  It’s an interesting question.

 

In addition, the NFL  owner/player relationship is hardly your typical employer/employee relationship.  The players have far more leverage than the typical worker does.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by mannc

[Mickey]

10 minutes ago, napmaster said:

 

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, and Corporate Personhood has been established.  Corporations are treated as unique entities, just like a person, and are provided similar protections.  Hobby Lobby was protected under the 1st Amendment in respect to avoiding laws that were in conflict with the corporate religious beliefs.  If Burger King mandated those greetings it also be protected under the 1st Amendment with the free speech clause.  They may go out of business if they did that, but it would be protected.  

 

The NFL can mandate whatever speech they like and it will be protected.   Players can choose to drop out of the league, or fans can stop supporting the league and put them out of business.

 

Respectfully disagree. There is a rich and long record of supreme court decisions prohibiting compelled speech in a variety of contexts. It is a complicated analysis which defies being reduced to one size fits all summaries like "...they can mandate whatever speech they like..." 

[Just Joshin']

1 minute ago, Epstein's Mother said:

 

It really doesn't bother me that there are players that would prefer to kneel during the national anthem to bring attention to social injustices.  This type of activity is considered free speech and is protected under the 1st amendment to the constitution just as is almost all speech good and bad (with the notable exception of calls to violence).  What is not protected by the first amendment is people's reaction to this type of activity.  

 

Like all of us on this board I have to consider the response to everything I post.  If I am willing to post something then I have to be willing to accept the praise and potentially the condemnation of my fellow posters.  The benefit of anonymity may raise the pain threshold for some on this board but I try to take some care in what I present.

 

If you are willing to kneel for the anthem then you have to be willing to accept everything that goes with it both good and bad.  If you are surprised by negative feedback then you have not properly weighed the potential outcomes of any protest.  No protest receives universal support.

You are incorrect.  Free speech is protected from infringement by the government.  You have no right to protest when on your employers time.

 

The difference is when the employer is limited by collective bargaining.  If the players feel this is significant, ask for it when working the next  contract.  I suspect that players will not make money or other concessions in order to kneel.  That will tell you how committed they are to kneeling:  will you take less money?

[Saxum]

Speaking of money what about the impact to the revenue to the NFL from the protests?

Many players want 'guaranteed contracts' (especially those approved by Jim Overdorf which allow you to take illegal drugs without penalty) but if the protests hurt the revenues then those players should be responsible for damages.

[Epstein's Mother]

7 minutes ago, Dalton said:

You are incorrect.  Free speech is protected from infringement by the government.  You have no right to protest when on your employers time.

 

The difference is when the employer is limited by collective bargaining.  If the players feel this is significant, ask for it when working the next  contract.  I suspect that players will not make money or other concessions in order to kneel.  That will tell you how committed they are to kneeling:  will you take less money?

 

You are right.  I should have acknowledged in my post that protest in the workplace is not covered.  

[Cripple Creek]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

As far far as I know, only the Jets have made that offer

The league is fining teams, not players.

[Andrew in CA]

2 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I think there are certainly people who quit watching games because of the protests. I'm pretty sure it is a known fact. I don't see why everybody wants to claim this guy here is making it up. Geeze half the people on here believe the dunkirk guy. But somebody says they stopped watching games is not plausible. 

 

 

On another note, I personally don't remember any level of controversy like this one for the NFL. Even during Vietnam I don't think the protests were allowed to bleed into the games. 

Anybody else know if there has been a circumstance like this before? 

I don't think it blended in to the NFL but you had Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise their fists during the anthem at the 1968 olympics, and Muhammad Ali refused to go to Vietnam.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Cripple Creek said:

The league is fining teams, not players.

 

 

The OPs article cites the Jets as the team that others should follow in pledging that they will not fine players.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, tumaro02 said:

I do appreciate your post. I would only say that when you say "WE fight for the freedom" are you including yourself? Have you personally fought for our freedom by serving in the armed forces or are you another who CLAIMS that  freedom as a birthright secured by the blood of others who serve now or have shed their blood in the past to secure that freedom for you? It is always easier to claim a Supreme Court ruling as a right when you did not serve or shed blood yourself. As long as some else has fought the fight you are eager to claim that freedom. I have not personally fought to preserve your  freedom or your Supreme Court gained rights but people also have a right to bigotry, racism, thoughtlessness, and some people here go out  of their way to claim all of those rights.

 

Why do you seem to feel that rights, in this country are somehow conditional on whether or not one served in the armed forces?          
NOWHERE are any of our freedoms in any way made conditional on serving in the armed forces or enhanced by having done so.

 

No one need "claim a Supreme Court ruling as a right".  Our rights are granted to us under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the point of the Supreme Court is simply to assess laws of lower courts in view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.    Or possibly I simply don't understand what you mean.

 

The overall point I was trying to make is that Supreme Court Justices who have steeped themselves in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have eloquently made the point that patriotism and displays of patriotism should not be coerced: "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest.  Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

"no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

 

I do respect your right to perceive it as disrespectful.  I also think the above are good words to ponder when interpreting unwillingness to participate in a display of patriotism (such as standing for the national anthem before a game) as disrespect, rather than as the living example of our country's freedoms, including the freedom to disagree about things that are deeply important to some of us.

 

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 minute ago, Andrew in CA said:

I don't think it blended in to the NFL but you had Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise their fists during the anthem at the 1968 olympics, and Muhammad Ali refused to go to Vietnam.

Thanks Andrew. I recall those things. To me though Tommie Smith and John Carlos were literally standing on their own platforms (the Olympic pedestals). They earned that through individual accomplishment.  Ali was the same way. 

 

I think an NFL game is a group effort of who knows how many people? Players, coaches, owners, etc. So to have  a few guys say they are using their platform isn't right. They are using the platform of everybody who makes up the overall team. Their platform would be whatever individual recognition they could get from being a celebrity athlete. 

 

Anyway that isn't what I am wondering about  I am more wondering if the NFL has faced a challenge like this before. One that has unknown implications.  The NFL had always been very strict about keeping to the script and staying in their lane and not being used as publicity for anyone.  Except if you paid them a fee for advertising . 

 

I just wonder if they know what they are doing or if instead they have opened up Pandoras Box. It could be real interesting to see what happens. 

 

Nowadays they have this in the middle of the most divided political climate since Vietnam & Nixon and all that, so far as I know. And they are kind of taking a side.

They have the whole women beating image thing.

They have the CTE stuff. Which I happen to know from a doctor / professory pal that a new study shows that participating in football before age 12 predicts an average onset of dementia 5 years earlier if I remember correctly. He said it was good study. Wait til that becomes commonly known.

 

And the weird thing is I am not even sure if I have all the major problems listed. It is getting hard to keep track of them. I don't remember a time when the NFL was so messy on their landscape as it is now.  

[Andrew in CA]

I'd prefer if all sports just stopped playing the anthem altogether.  It is an odd time for a display of patriotism and we've all seemed to accept it because it's been going on for years and years.  Why did they even do it in the first place? 

 

Hey, all you drunks who've been throwing yourselves through tables and chugging liquor out of bowling balls for 5 hours, please stand and remove your hats and solemnly reflect on what it means to be an American before this sporting event, in which no team is playing on behalf of the nation! Oh, but feel free to puke in the bathroom or chug your beers in the concourse or get 12 more beers at the concession stands while it's playing!

 

8 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Thanks Andrew. I recall those things. To me though Tommie Smith and John Carlos were literally standing on their own platforms (the Olympic pedestals). They earned that through individual accomplishment.  Ali was the same way. 

 

I think an NFL game is a group effort of who knows how many people? Players, coaches, owners, etc. So to have  a few guys say they are using their platform isn't right. They are using the platform of everybody who makes up the overall team. Their platform would be whatever individual recognition they could get from being a celebrity athlete. 

 

Anyway that isn't what I am wondering about  I am more wondering if the NFL has faced a challenge like this before. One that has unknown implications.  The NFL had always been very strict about keeping to the script and staying in their lane and not being used as publicity for anyone.  Except if you paid them a fee for advertising . 

 

Yeah I getcha -- those events were on my mind because I recently watched a four-part special on 1968.  I agree in my lifetime that this is the most divided political climate, and I found myself wondering if we didn't have cable and the internet would we be seeing more of the large protests and violence that they saw in that year..... I don't know one way or the other, just got me thinking about it.  

 

And yes i agree with you that the NFL seems to be totally clueless when it comes to all of their problems, not just the anthem stuff.  

Edited June 2, 2018 by Andrew in CA

[machine gun kelly]

Andrew -every major sport plays the National Anthem and in the NBA there is a far gr after percentage of people of color than the NFL, and standing for the Anthem is mandatory.

 

i still think this plan will be a spectacle as it will be obvious who is not out there.  No one seemed to like my simple solution to just go pre 911 and not have anyone out there and problem solved.

 

By the way I absolutely agree with the players who as I adhore racial violence in anyway, and want as many players of any race or ethnicity protest these injustices.  I just don’t agree with doing it on the field during a game.  Raise funds, protests, talk to you’re local police depts about the injustices you’ve faced or extra stops when driving.  It’s disgusting and should not be tolerated by superiors.  For any of the police officers as a couple of years ago fired on an innocent person should go to jail.

 

i respect people who have an opposite opinion, but that does not mean my opinion is valid as well.  

 

I’m sure I’ll catch it for my opinion, but I really try to be respectful of people I disagree with on this stance.

 

i hope all of you have a nice weekend.

[BadLandsMeanie]

16 minutes ago, Andrew in CA said:

I'd prefer if all sports just stopped playing the anthem altogether.  It is an odd time for a display of patriotism and we've all seemed to accept it because it's been going on for years and years.  Why did they even do it in the first place? 

 

Hey, all you drunks who've been throwing yourselves through tables and chugging liquor out of bowling balls for 5 hours, please stand and remove your hats and solemnly reflect on what it means to be an American before this sporting event, in which no team is playing on behalf of the nation! Oh, but feel free to puke in the bathroom or chug your beers in the concourse or get 12 more beers at the concession stands while it's playing!

 

 

Yeah I getcha -- those events were on my mind because I recently watched a four-part special on 1968.  I agree in my lifetime that this is the most divided political climate, and I found myself wondering if we didn't have cable and the internet would we be seeing more of the large protests and violence that they saw in that year..... I don't know one way or the other, just got me thinking about it.  

 

And yes i agree with you that the NFL seems to be totally clueless when it comes to all of their problems, not just the anthem stuff.  

Good thoughts. On the anthem, that goes way back into baseball lore, at least that far back I think. No idea why they started. My best guess would be it signals people to settle down and pay attention the game is about to start.

 

It works well for that because most people figure they have to behave during it so it settles everyone down and gets them paying attention to the field. 

 

I personally wouldn't stop playing it in response to this, unless things got very desperate. I think stopping on account of this would do more lasting harm than the kneeling.

 

 

3 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

Andrew -every major sport plays the National Anthem and in the NBA there is a far gr after percentage of people of color than the NFL, and standing for the Anthem is mandatory.

 

i still think this plan will be a spectacle as it will be obvious who is not out there.  No one seemed to like my simple solution to just go pre 911 and not have anyone out there and problem solved.

 

By the way I absolutely agree with the players who as I adhore racial violence in anyway, and want as many players of any race or ethnicity protest these injustices.  I just don’t agree with doing it on the field during a game.  Raise funds, protests, talk to you’re local police depts about the injustices you’ve faced or extra stops when driving.  It’s disgusting and should not be tolerated by superiors.  For any of the police officers as a couple of years ago fired on an innocent person should go to jail.

 

i respect people who have an opposite opinion, but that does not mean my opinion is valid as well.  

 

I’m sure I’ll catch it for my opinion, but I really try to be respectful of people I disagree with on this stance.

 

i hope all of you have a nice weekend.

The pre-911 is a falsehood. Check it out. That is just something somebody made up. 

[napmaster]

1 hour ago, Mickey said:

Respectfully disagree. There is a rich and long record of supreme court decisions prohibiting compelled speech in a variety of contexts. It is a complicated analysis which defies being reduced to one size fits all summaries like "...they can mandate whatever speech they like..." 

 

As for a rich and long record of SCOTUS decisions, I can cite precedence on rulings involving governmental bodies and jurisdictions in which compelled speech was ruled against, but I have not yet run across a case involving a private or public corporation.  I am not saying there aren't any, only that I have not seen one.  It's possible there are many.

 

To your second point, I agree and should have worded my response more carefully.  They cannot mandate whatever speech they, so thank you for calling me out on that.  There are clearly limits bound by sedition and imminent danger and likely others.

[Andrew in CA]

8 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

Andrew -every major sport plays the National Anthem and in the NBA there is a far gr after percentage of people of color than the NFL, and standing for the Anthem is mandatory.

 

i still think this plan will be a spectacle as it will be obvious who is not out there.  No one seemed to like my simple solution to just go pre 911 and not have anyone out there and problem solved.

 

By the way I absolutely agree with the players who as I adhore racial violence in anyway, and want as many players of any race or ethnicity protest these injustices.  I just don’t agree with doing it on the field during a game.  Raise funds, protests, talk to you’re local police depts about the injustices you’ve faced or extra stops when driving.  It’s disgusting and should not be tolerated by superiors.  For any of the police officers as a couple of years ago fired on an innocent person should go to jail.

 

i respect people who have an opposite opinion, but that does not mean my opinion is valid as well.  

  

I’m sure I’ll catch it for my opinion, but I really try to be respectful of people I disagree with on this stance.

 

i hope all of you have a nice weekend.

 

I know, my point is all sports should stop playing it, at least for every single game.  It loses meaning and is not treated with respect or reflection.  Symbols lose their meaning when they become routine.  You're plenty respectful, no disrespect taken!

 

5 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Good thoughts. On the anthem, that goes way back into baseball lore, at least that far back I think. No idea why they started. My best guess would be it signals people to settle down and pay attention the game is about to start.

 

It works well for that because most people figure they have to behave during it so it settles everyone down and gets them paying attention to the field. 

 

I personally wouldn't stop playing it in response to this, unless things got very desperate. I think stopping on account of this would do more lasting harm than the kneeling.

 

 

 

Exactly -- the anthem becomes a school bell letting everyone know to get to class on time!  It is not about reflection or reverence.  You're right that if they stopped it now, it would be seen as a response to these protests, but I think that they should've done this awhile ago.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Andrew in CA

[BadLandsMeanie]

23 minutes ago, Andrew in CA said:

 

And yes i agree with you that the NFL seems to be totally clueless when it comes to all of their problems, not just the anthem stuff.  

On this last point, just my own two cents. I have finally come to realize that the reason the NFL always has such trouble with the image that they have a lower opinion of and are disrespectful of women, is because they are.  I never believed that I always thought it was an unfair slam on them. But having looked a lot, I think it is true. 

 

To your larger point I agree they are insulated in some weird way that they can't see their problems in a clear headed way. 

4 minutes ago, Andrew in CA said:

 

 

 

Exactly -- the anthem becomes a school bell letting everyone know to get to class on time!  It is not about reflection or reverence.  You're right that if they stopped it now, it would be seen as a response to these protests, but I think that they should've done this awhile ago.

I bet they wish they had stopped a while ago!

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I would say it was lost when the owners decided to react to it with statements of outrage and unity. Some taking it a bunch of levels up and making a big show of kneeling with their players. Talk about being trolled.   Trump just made troll remark they should have just totally ignored it, but they were too stupid.

 

There were too many raw emotions at the time.  Both by the players who protested and the teammates who felt the president took a direct shot at their  brothers in the locker room by calling them SOB's who should be fired at a rally in Alabama.  I don't know how the teams could've done it any differently. 

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not ignored it, perhaps, but responded with a statement to the effect of "We, as the owners of the NFL, will exercise our rights to run our business as we see fit without unwarranted interference from elected officials" - or the like.

That may have been a smart way to go, but I still think you would've seen owners and players joining hands during the National Anthem that following Sunday as the emotions of the players were just too intense at the time.

[Marv's Neighbor]

We have enough problems without taking advice from a politico.  maybe if he built us a stadium, we'd listen?  Nah!

[Engelwood]

21 hours ago, Tatonka68 said:

Let's say you pay $100 00 to see a Broadway play and during the play a actor stops acting and tells the audience that he is vegan and eating animals is evil. Is that freedom of speech? What would you do if you were the producer?

Are you paying to see the players play football or stand like pylons during the national anthem. your analogy would work if they stopped playing and did it but they are playing hard through every snap. It is just the American media that has taken what they were protesting, perceived injustice and mistreatment by police, something that can be debated and if there is an issue be solved and turned it into a debate that has no solution and will make arguments and separate the nation into 2 separate groups. In this case it is about respecting the military vs right to protest........ If you are arguing about that you have turned into a sheep for the media and are missing the point to everything. Unfortunately even the NFL has fallen for it. 

[Cripple Creek]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The OPs article cites the Jets as the team that others should follow in pledging that they will not fine players.

 

 

Correct. The jets won’t “pass on” the fine to the players. Much ado about nothing. IMO the Pegulas would do the same. Just a politician grandstanding.