Quote: @dadevike said:
@ suncoastvike said:
I think it is too hard to compare sporting events to private industry. While it's true I believe freedom of speach is protection from the government. I'm not sure it applies to the work place. I could be wrong however that's not my point here. Yes NFL teams are privately owned franchises. They play in private/ publicly funded stadiums. Comparing sports teams to private industry is not apples to apples. 65,000 people do not show up at 3M to watch them make Sticky Notes.
All this is true, but I think you are making the wrong comparison. For First Amendment protection purposes, the question is not whether a sports team is equivalent to a private industry (although I would argue that it is), the question is whether the sports team is equivalent to the government. And I would argue that it is not.
Any employer can fire you, whether that is a sports team or a burger joint or a government job. And not having a job in a capitalist country like ours can be a very big deal. I am not minimizing that at all. But no private employer can take your freedom or your life. Only the government can (legally) do that. Only one has the force of the state behind it: the government.
Does Buger King ask cities/states to put up $500m to fund their new restaurant? That was my main point. They are kind of public/state government buildings when they take that money. The men working inside are employees. They people paying for the tickets should be able to get a refund then if they make rules or ban players that could effect you enjoyment. That you paid for. I know other big businesses are subsidised by tax funds. These events are public gatherings in publicly funded venues. If they want it to be totally private and run it that way stop asking states to pony up $$$.
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
Quote: @Poiple said:
@ suncoastvike said:
I think it is too hard to compare sporting events to private industry. While it's true I believe freedom of speach is protection from the government. I'm not sure it applies to the work place. I could be wrong however that's not my point here. Yes NFL teams are privately owned franchises. They play in private/ publicly funded stadiums. Comparing sports teams to private industry is not apples to apples. 65,000 people do not show up at 3M to watch them make Sticky Notes.
It is apples to apples. You just picked a bad example with 3M. How about actor making a movie. Its entertainment similar to football. Does his employer have the right to expect him to say his lines correctly? Is it ok to expect him to read fhem as written or can that actor make up his own lines and demand the employer respect it because its his first amendment right?
It only applies with the government. In fact the government has many laws and official policies protecting minorities. The constitution, the bill of rights and numerous laws. Some of the laws even give them special protections, almost a reverse discimination affording them increased protection under the law. There is absolutely zero case that this is a government sponsored program of discrimination. Thats not to say there isnt prejudice. Of course there is. But it isnt goverment sponsored or condoned. There are individual government persons who are prejudice and when it affects their job performance of their duties then people have every right to pursue legal actions against them including legsl demonstrations. That doesnt mean they can do it in their workplace and their employer is legally required to tolerate or condone it.
Its not like these football players do not have other recourse. Every time they open their mouths some media whore is right there with a microphone hoping they say something, anything contrversial.
They also control HUGE SUMS OF MONEY. Take the number of NFL players and multiply it by the average salary of an NFL player. How many humdreds of millions of dollars do the command? Or is it BILLIONS? With all of this at their disposal do they really have no other avenue or recourse than to do it at work in publicly funded stadiums?
Show some respect for the country who affords them so many special privledges and the appreciation to the people who pay to see the game. Keep their off field issues off the field and take care of their personal business in any of the many ways that are afforded them.
Rich spoiled unimaginative lazy.
No my comparison is still the same as I just stated above. Movie studio to not ask for public funds to build a new set. For the record as I said way previously. The Vikings have had no kneelers yet. It should be something we are proud of.
Quote: @Poiple said:
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
I did say already I don't know about how 1st amendment rights related to the work force. If it even does. I will concede that. I'm still saying they are public gathering in a partiality publicly funded facilities. More in line to a concert then a trip to Burger King. Which yes we take public roads to all these??? That point I don't get.
My bottom line is that our country has a long history of peaceful, non-violent protest. It's part of what makes this country great.
I grew up in the cold war era hearing all about human rights violations in the Soviet Union, China, South Africa, Argentina, Suriname, etc. People in these places were imprisoned or made to "disappear" for merely disagreeing with their country's leadership.
And so whenever I see people in America peacefully and non-violently protesting, it makes me proud to be an American.
Quote: @dadevike said:
Personally, I do not have a problem with players kneeling to bring attention to the treatment of African Americans and other minorities by the police. I also agree this is not really a First Amendment issue since there is not government power exerted to prevent the "speech." (While I do not agree with Trump's statements re the kneeling, I think his statements, while political, do not rise to the level of government power.) And short of collusion, every NFL team is free to refuse to employ any player for kneeling, if it wants to do that.
Last year the NFL said the players had the right to kneel. Presumably, the NFL meant that it was not a violation of any NFL rule or CBA provision. Now the NFL is considering a 15-yard penalty to start the game? That seems heavy handed and awkward at best.
Was kneeling really a problem at the end of last year? How many players were still doing it? Seems like it was losing steam - point made, issue raised, let's move on. And look at what has happened to the two primary guys: Kaepernick and Reid. Both are out of jobs right now. How many players are interested in following in their footsteps? I'm guessing not many. But if you order the players not to kneel and threaten them with penalties, it might cause some to do it simply to show that they will not be silenced. (I would love to see Zeke Elliott and Zac Prescott call Jerry's bluff. I bet he would not cut them for kneeling.)
An aside: evidently, it was a former Green Beret from Texas who spoke with Kaepernick and suggested that, rather than sit during the anthem, which is disrespectful, he should kneel because kneeling is a sign of respect but would still signal his protest.
I don't have a problem with them kneeling (or I should say, it is their right and I disagree with that approach) just as I don't have a problem with the owners reining it in. I agree this approach is awkward and won't solve anything.
One interesting note on your notion that it was fading away on its own. Almost sounds like the NFL wants to revive the "controversy". And what was more notable was the teams that participated heavily really struggled last year. Seattle had numerous chemistry issues and rotten attitudes surfaced in a very bad year. Not all this is to be attributed to the protests, but it was a sign of deeper disunity. POS Bennett was their Man of the Year nominee.
Oakland was another example of this issue causing disunity. Rumors of the O-line not blocking for Carr because he stood and the line knelt. Great concept of free speech not being the true issue because Carr was penalized for his free speech.
The media loves a controversy and kept this brewing much longer than it should have. Now the owners, in either obliviously late fashion, or a contrived manner to keep it alive are continuing the controversy.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ Poiple said:
@ suncoastvike said:
I think it is too hard to compare sporting events to private industry. While it's true I believe freedom of speach is protection from the government. I'm not sure it applies to the work place. I could be wrong however that's not my point here. Yes NFL teams are privately owned franchises. They play in private/ publicly funded stadiums. Comparing sports teams to private industry is not apples to apples. 65,000 people do not show up at 3M to watch them make Sticky Notes.
It is apples to apples. You just picked a bad example with 3M. How about actor making a movie. Its entertainment similar to football. Does his employer have the right to expect him to say his lines correctly? Is it ok to expect him to read fhem as written or can that actor make up his own lines and demand the employer respect it because its his first amendment right?
It only applies with the government. In fact the government has many laws and official policies protecting minorities. The constitution, the bill of rights and numerous laws. Some of the laws even give them special protections, almost a reverse discimination affording them increased protection under the law. There is absolutely zero case that this is a government sponsored program of discrimination. Thats not to say there isnt prejudice. Of course there is. But it isnt goverment sponsored or condoned. There are individual government persons who are prejudice and when it affects their job performance of their duties then people have every right to pursue legal actions against them including legsl demonstrations. That doesnt mean they can do it in their workplace and their employer is legally required to tolerate or condone it.
Its not like these football players do not have other recourse. Every time they open their mouths some media whore is right there with a microphone hoping they say something, anything contrversial.
They also control HUGE SUMS OF MONEY. Take the number of NFL players and multiply it by the average salary of an NFL player. How many humdreds of millions of dollars do the command? Or is it BILLIONS? With all of this at their disposal do they really have no other avenue or recourse than to do it at work in publicly funded stadiums?
Show some respect for the country who affords them so many special privledges and the appreciation to the people who pay to see the game. Keep their off field issues off the field and take care of their personal business in any of the many ways that are afforded them.
Rich spoiled unimaginative lazy.
No my comparison is still the same as I just stated above. Movie studio to not ask for public funds to build a new set. For the record as I said way previously. The Vikings have had no kneelers yet. It should be something we are proud of.
Not true. Why do you think so much of the production industry moved out of California and into states that offered massive tax breaks to bring in production? Louisiana, Georgia, and New Mexico are the current hotbeds, not to mention all of the production that went to Canada in the last decades.
Quote: @mgobluevikes said:
@ suncoastvike said:
@ Poiple said:
@ suncoastvike said:
I think it is too hard to compare sporting events to private industry. While it's true I believe freedom of speach is protection from the government. I'm not sure it applies to the work place. I could be wrong however that's not my point here. Yes NFL teams are privately owned franchises. They play in private/ publicly funded stadiums. Comparing sports teams to private industry is not apples to apples. 65,000 people do not show up at 3M to watch them make Sticky Notes.
It is apples to apples. You just picked a bad example with 3M. How about actor making a movie. Its entertainment similar to football. Does his employer have the right to expect him to say his lines correctly? Is it ok to expect him to read fhem as written or can that actor make up his own lines and demand the employer respect it because its his first amendment right?
It only applies with the government. In fact the government has many laws and official policies protecting minorities. The constitution, the bill of rights and numerous laws. Some of the laws even give them special protections, almost a reverse discimination affording them increased protection under the law. There is absolutely zero case that this is a government sponsored program of discrimination. Thats not to say there isnt prejudice. Of course there is. But it isnt goverment sponsored or condoned. There are individual government persons who are prejudice and when it affects their job performance of their duties then people have every right to pursue legal actions against them including legsl demonstrations. That doesnt mean they can do it in their workplace and their employer is legally required to tolerate or condone it.
Its not like these football players do not have other recourse. Every time they open their mouths some media whore is right there with a microphone hoping they say something, anything contrversial.
They also control HUGE SUMS OF MONEY. Take the number of NFL players and multiply it by the average salary of an NFL player. How many humdreds of millions of dollars do the command? Or is it BILLIONS? With all of this at their disposal do they really have no other avenue or recourse than to do it at work in publicly funded stadiums?
Show some respect for the country who affords them so many special privledges and the appreciation to the people who pay to see the game. Keep their off field issues off the field and take care of their personal business in any of the many ways that are afforded them.
Rich spoiled unimaginative lazy.
No my comparison is still the same as I just stated above. Movie studio to not ask for public funds to build a new set. For the record as I said way previously. The Vikings have had no kneelers yet. It should be something we are proud of.
Not true. Why do you think so much of the production industry moved out of California and into states that offered massive tax breaks to bring in production? Louisiana, Georgia, and New Mexico are the current hotbeds, not to mention all of the production that went to Canada in the last decades.
Quote: @mgobluevikes said:
@ suncoastvike said:
@ Poiple said:
@ suncoastvike said:
I think it is too hard to compare sporting events to private industry. While it's true I believe freedom of speach is protection from the government. I'm not sure it applies to the work place. I could be wrong however that's not my point here. Yes NFL teams are privately owned franchises. They play in private/ publicly funded stadiums. Comparing sports teams to private industry is not apples to apples. 65,000 people do not show up at 3M to watch them make Sticky Notes.
It is apples to apples. You just picked a bad example with 3M. How about actor making a movie. Its entertainment similar to football. Does his employer have the right to expect him to say his lines correctly? Is it ok to expect him to read fhem as written or can that actor make up his own lines and demand the employer respect it because its his first amendment right?
It only applies with the government. In fact the government has many laws and official policies protecting minorities. The constitution, the bill of rights and numerous laws. Some of the laws even give them special protections, almost a reverse discimination affording them increased protection under the law. There is absolutely zero case that this is a government sponsored program of discrimination. Thats not to say there isnt prejudice. Of course there is. But it isnt goverment sponsored or condoned. There are individual government persons who are prejudice and when it affects their job performance of their duties then people have every right to pursue legal actions against them including legsl demonstrations. That doesnt mean they can do it in their workplace and their employer is legally required to tolerate or condone it.
Its not like these football players do not have other recourse. Every time they open their mouths some media whore is right there with a microphone hoping they say something, anything contrversial.
They also control HUGE SUMS OF MONEY. Take the number of NFL players and multiply it by the average salary of an NFL player. How many humdreds of millions of dollars do the command? Or is it BILLIONS? With all of this at their disposal do they really have no other avenue or recourse than to do it at work in publicly funded stadiums?
Show some respect for the country who affords them so many special privledges and the appreciation to the people who pay to see the game. Keep their off field issues off the field and take care of their personal business in any of the many ways that are afforded them.
Rich spoiled unimaginative lazy.
No my comparison is still the same as I just stated above. Movie studio to not ask for public funds to build a new set. For the record as I said way previously. The Vikings have had no kneelers yet. It should be something we are proud of.
Not true. Why do you think so much of the production industry moved out of California and into states that offered massive tax breaks to bring in production? Louisiana, Georgia, and New Mexico are the current hotbeds, not to mention all of the production that went to Canada in the last decades.
That's fine. I still don't acquaint tax breaks to entice business as going into partnership with the state by putting up money to build the stadium. The events themselves are public gathering. Not here to argue the owners rights at all. They do as they please. It still is their right to fire someone over kneeling. Don't know it would be in their best interest.
This just in ... The NFL will not require players to be on the field for the national anthem. The League hopes this move will end protests before games.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
It absolutely is a first amendment right and they will get sued to hell and back for it if they do it. I can’t support such an ifiotic move by the owners calling even more attention to this.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard the NFL do yet.
If the NFL were to be sued for violating the kneeling players' first amendment rights, I suspect that claim will get dismissed quickly. If the NFL were sued for penalizing players for doing something that is not prohibited by any NFL rule or by the CBA, then that is an entirely different matter.
|
