Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ 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 $$$.
Actually many business, Burger King included, receive large tax incentives and subsidies to move in to certain areas. But Burger King is still not the government. The publicly funded stadiums are not much different then say a new manufacturing facility that receives a half a billion dollars in tax incentives to relocate or build in a certain area. And if you want to take it a step further, EVERY business is beneficial of government funding just by having a road or a highway ran to it.
But that is not the point. The first amendment quite CLEARLY states that Congress shall make no law. Not private business, not any other entity. The government and the government only can violate the 1st amendment.
Now are there laws that possibly prevent this? I don't know because many times the labor laws are state level. This is why most people believe Kapernick and Reid have no shot at their law suit. There are very few federal laws that address this and likely will never be. You can't sue the entire NFL for laws that do not exist at a federal level (collusion), BUT you can sue the Minnesota Vikings based on Minnesota labor laws whatever they may be.
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ 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 $$$.
How about Amazon? Amazon is pitting states against each other to see who will give it the best deal for its second headquarters. And Elon Musk did the same for his battery company before settling on Nevada.
But so what? Any business enterprise can ASK for tax breaks or incentives from the government. And the government can decline. Or it can acquiesce if it thinks it is in its constituents' best interest.
But again, so what? A government caving in to big business does not make that business quasi-governmental. As a taxpayer you may feel that you should have some sort of claim against a business that accepted your tax dollars, but you do not. The quid pro quo was: if the government helps to pay for the stadium or the land or gives the business a tax break or other incentive, the business will locate itself in the government's jurisdiction. It may pay local taxes or employ the government's citizens or provide some measure of prestige or whatever. But it does not make a private entity a part of the government. It just doesn't.
Quote: @Vikesrock said:
@ suncoastvike said:
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Well ..... If you and I collude to murder your neighbor, that is a criminal conspiracy. Definitely against the law.
If Ford, GM, and Chrysler collude to sell no cars at less than $25,000, that is an antitrust violation - also against the law.
If you and I collude to have lunch, that is not illegal.
If the Vikings and the Packers collude not to sign Colin Kaepernick, that is a violation of the CBA and is enforceable with damages (including punitives) and maybe even injunctive relief - not sure about that last one.
So, whether or not collusion is illegal depends on what you are colluding to do.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ suncoastvike said:
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Well ..... If you and I collude to murder your neighbor, that is a criminal conspiracy. Definitely against the law.
If Ford, GM, and Chrysler collude to sell no cars at less than $25,000, that is an antitrust violation - also against the law.
If you and I collude to have lunch, that is not illegal.
If the Vikings and the Packers collude not to sign Colin Kaepernick, that is a violation of the CBA and is enforceable with damages (including punitives) and maybe even injunctive relief - not sure about that last one.
So, whether or not collusion is illegal depends on what you are colluding to do.
All of that is correct. Collusion in and of itself is not a violation of the law, but in many cases the result of collusion does then create a violation of law. For example, if you and I collude to murder your neighbor, and I say screw it and tell the police on you, I have not broken any law.
I have not fully studied the CBA, but that is also a civil lawsuit and not violation of a law. I say all of this because folks don't seem to understand the ramifications of it all and get all bent out of shape like their rights are being violated. Colin Kapernicks first amendment rights have not been violated. He can attempt to sue based on the CBA for damages, but he still has his ability to protest and kneel during national anthems and will not be jailed for such actions.
On the other hand, a thought, if the CBA can be used against the owners, could it not be used against the players as well? If Colin Kapernick colluded with others to continue to protest, or it seemed that he did, and it can be shown to have caused financial damage to the NFL teams, owners and media, could a counter suit be presented on that behalf as well? I guess it all depends on the actual CBA language involved.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ suncoastvike said:
@ 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 $$$.
How about Amazon? Amazon is pitting states against each other to see who will give it the best deal for its second headquarters. And Elon Musk did the same for his battery company before settling on Nevada.
But so what? Any business enterprise can ASK for tax breaks or incentives from the government. And the government can decline. Or it can acquiesce if it thinks it is in its constituents' best interest.
But again, so what? A government caving in to big business does not make that business quasi-governmental. As a taxpayer you may feel that you should have some sort of claim against a business that accepted your tax dollars, but you do not. The quid pro quo was: if the government helps to pay for the stadium or the land or gives the business a tax break or other incentive, the business will locate itself in the government's jurisdiction. It may pay local taxes or employ the government's citizens or provide some measure of prestige or whatever. But it does not make a private entity a part of the government. It just doesn't.
I don't now how to explain it anymore then I have. I don't see it as apples to apples because it's an entirely different animal. I just don't see where Amazon, Burger King or any other business mentioned in response that might take a tax break to go to a particular city is the same. My main argument has been these city/states partially fund these venues for public events. Amazon will have hundreds of employees and a few guests on any given day. Football games are a few thousand employees and 10's of thousands of public guests. In the publicly funded stadium. I guess I'm just thickheaded. I a l ready conceded I don't understand it legally. So insted I will just say...imo...not apples to apples.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Vanguard83 said:
Enough horseshit.
It's not about YOUR beliefs. Stand and honor the flag & your country.
Politics and sports DONT have to go hand in hand.
Honor those who put themselves in the line of fire for your opportunity to make millions.
anyone kneels on my team and your ass is cut. IDGAS.
Bunch of pouting children...
...and I consider myself a liberal.
You seem to be a reasonable person on most issues, Vanguard, so I want to ask you a question. What if the country were doing something that deeply offended YOU? Let's take it to the extreme. What if we were throwing all school teachers in jail, or Jews, or intellectuals, or liberals, whatever. Would you protest then? Is there a point at which you would say "enough" and do something about it? Maybe your form of protest would be different than kneeling during an anthem. Maybe it would even be more extreme.
But if there is a point at which you would protest, then isn't this just a matter of this particular issue not rising to the level you personally would deem protestable?
I have protested before, most recently following the student shootings in Florida.AS a teacher, I am tired of seeing children killing other children. I did it in part to support my daughter (a junior in high school) and many of her friends in "March for our lives"
HOWEVER, I am also a realist, and I BELIEVE in the Constitution..INCLUDING second amendment rights.Criminals intent on harm will find a gun, a truck, a plane...what have you, to do harm.I don't personally own a gun, but support people's choices to purchase them.
I'm all about MORE freedoms...not LESS.
If it came to the point where liberals, teachers, intellectuals were being rounded up and imprisoned, then our
republic has failed.
I would leave the United States.
Quote: @Vikesrock said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ suncoastvike said:
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Well ..... If you and I collude to murder your neighbor, that is a criminal conspiracy. Definitely against the law.
If Ford, GM, and Chrysler collude to sell no cars at less than $25,000, that is an antitrust violation - also against the law.
If you and I collude to have lunch, that is not illegal.
If the Vikings and the Packers collude not to sign Colin Kaepernick, that is a violation of the CBA and is enforceable with damages (including punitives) and maybe even injunctive relief - not sure about that last one.
So, whether or not collusion is illegal depends on what you are colluding to do.
All of that is correct. Collusion in and of itself is not a violation of the law, but in many cases the result of collusion does then create a violation of law. For example, if you and I collude to murder your neighbor, and I say screw it and tell the police on you, I have not broken any law.
I have not fully studied the CBA, but that is also a civil lawsuit and not violation of a law. I say all of this because folks don't seem to understand the ramifications of it all and get all bent out of shape like their rights are being violated. Colin Kapernicks first amendment rights have not been violated. He can attempt to sue based on the CBA for damages, but he still has his ability to protest and kneel during national anthems and will not be jailed for such actions.
On the other hand, a thought, if the CBA can be used against the owners, could it not be used against the players as well? If Colin Kapernick colluded with others to continue to protest, or it seemed that he did, and it can be shown to have caused financial damage to the NFL teams, owners and media, could a counter suit be presented on that behalf as well? I guess it all depends on the actual CBA language involved.
Agreements themselves can be illegal. Using our example, we collude to murder someone but unbeknownst to you, I am with the FBI and am recording the conversation. Nobody is going to die. As soon as you take one affirmative act to show you are serious, you probably have committed a crime. What if you call me the next day and say you changed your mind? Does that undo your crime? Probably not.
The CBA is a contract. Courts (and arbitrators) will enforce contracts so long as they are not in violation of some public policy. If there is collusion to keep Kaepernick from working, someone could be compelled to pay millions of dollars. Breach of contract is not a criminal violation and nobody will go to prison. But if some owner is forced to pay Kaepernick $30M, it won't make him feel any better to know that he merely breached a contract and did not violate any statutory laws.
Also, I do not think there is anything in the CBA prohibiting players from colluding to protest. If there were, that would have been the first thing cited by the NFL and the owners.
And now this:
This season, NFL players must stand during the National Anthem, team owners
decided Wednesday in Atlanta -- a reaction to fierce backlash against some
who took a knee in symbolic opposition to the systemic oppression of people
of color, including by police.
A statement from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said team owners unanimously
agreed that the NFL can fine a team whose players protests on the sidelines
during the National Anthem, but that each team will set will its own rules
regarding players who want to kneel.
|
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
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.
It might have been scarier times then in some way but clearer lines on who to fear.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ suncoastvike said:
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Well ..... If you and I collude to murder your neighbor, that is a criminal conspiracy. Definitely against the law.
If Ford, GM, and Chrysler collude to sell no cars at less than $25,000, that is an antitrust violation - also against the law.
If you and I collude to have lunch, that is not illegal.
If the Vikings and the Packers collude not to sign Colin Kaepernick, that is a violation of the CBA and is enforceable with damages (including punitives) and maybe even injunctive relief - not sure about that last one.
So, whether or not collusion is illegal depends on what you are colluding to do.
All of that is correct. Collusion in and of itself is not a violation of the law, but in many cases the result of collusion does then create a violation of law. For example, if you and I collude to murder your neighbor, and I say screw it and tell the police on you, I have not broken any law.
I have not fully studied the CBA, but that is also a civil lawsuit and not violation of a law. I say all of this because folks don't seem to understand the ramifications of it all and get all bent out of shape like their rights are being violated. Colin Kapernicks first amendment rights have not been violated. He can attempt to sue based on the CBA for damages, but he still has his ability to protest and kneel during national anthems and will not be jailed for such actions.
On the other hand, a thought, if the CBA can be used against the owners, could it not be used against the players as well? If Colin Kapernick colluded with others to continue to protest, or it seemed that he did, and it can be shown to have caused financial damage to the NFL teams, owners and media, could a counter suit be presented on that behalf as well? I guess it all depends on the actual CBA language involved.
Agreements themselves can be illegal. Using our example, we collude to murder someone but unbeknownst to you, I am with the FBI and am recording the conversation. Nobody is going to die. As soon as you take one affirmative act to show you are serious, you probably have committed a crime. What if you call me the next day and say you changed your mind? Does that undo your crime? Probably not.
The CBA is a contract. Courts (and arbitrators) will enforce contracts so long as they are not in violation of some public policy. If there is collusion to keep Kaepernick from working, someone could be compelled to pay millions of dollars. Breach of contract is not a criminal violation and nobody will go to prison. But if some owner is forced to pay Kaepernick $30M, it won't make him feel any better to know that he merely breached a contract and did not violate any statutory laws.
Also, I do not think there is anything in the CBA prohibiting players from colluding to protest. If there were, that would have been the first thing cited by the NFL and the owners.
Agreed, and it is all based on context. How many times have you said "I am going to kill that so and so", but were never serious. You do have to make an affirmative act. Again the collusion is not the crime, the act is the actual crime and the collusion is evidence that further plans were made.
And I agree with you 100%. If the owner is forced to pay Kapernick a bunch of money, he isn't going to feel better. My point on all of this was to the original subject title of the first amendment violation. Btw, while we were talking about this, apparently the NFL made some new rules about it already:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/sport...eling.html
And lookie there, they will penalize the teams and not the players...I don't think this will work out well for them at all.
|
