Owners Considering Penalizing 1st Amendment Rights

@"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 $$$.

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"dadevike" 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.

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"dadevike" 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.

@"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.

@"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? 

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"dadevike" 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.

And now this:

@"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.

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"dadevike" 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.

@"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.

@"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? 

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"dadevike" 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/sports/nfl-anthem-kneeling.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.

@"Vanguard83" said:

@"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've protested before, (but not often) most recently with my daughter and her friends following the school shootings in Florida. (She is a junior in HS) The "March for our Lives" protest. As a teacher I'm tired of seeing children killing other children, but I went to support not only a "cease-fire" in public schools but to support my daughter and her friends who wanted their voice heard. (and still believe they can make a difference....I do not share their optimism) I distrust BOTH political parties, and tend to agree with Howard Zinn that we have become a plutocracy.

HOWEVER..
I do support the second Amendment. I cannot pick and choose which elements of the Constitution I support. At the center of it is, I support  MORE liberties not less. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns, explosives, trucks, planes, whatever to impress havoc on others.  PEOPLE are the problem, NOT the weapons. Generally, we have lost our tolerance and patience.
I refer to it as "The Falcon cannot hear the Falconer"
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
       THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know

    That twenty centuries of stony sleep

    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

If it came to pass that people are being put into jails for political dissonance, liberals, teachers, etc. then our Republic has failed, and yes, that is "enough" for me, quite simply I would leave the United States.

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"dadevike" 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/sports/nfl-anthem-kneeling.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.

"Again the collusion is not the crime, the act is the actual crime and the collusion is evidence that further plans were made."

This is wrong.
Not sure how else to put this: an agreement to commit murder (plus an act in furtherance) is a crime.  You do not have to commit the murder; and the act in furtherance need not be a criminal act. The criminal law that has been violated is not murder; it is not the committing of the overt act in furtherance; it is the conspiracy to murder. 

@"Vanguard83" said:

@"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've protested before, (but not often) most recently with my daughter and her friends following the school shootings in Florida. (She is a junior in HS) The "March for our Lives" protest. As a teacher I'm tired of seeing children killing other children, but I went to support not only a "cease-fire" in public schools but to support my daughter and her friends who wanted their voice heard. (and still believe they can make a difference....I do not share their optimism) I distrust BOTH political parties, and tend to agree with Howard Zinn that we have become a plutocracy.

HOWEVER..
I do support the second Amendment. I cannot pick and choose which elements of the Constitution I support. At the center of it is, I support  MORE liberties not less. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns, explosives, trucks, planes, whatever to impress havoc on others.  PEOPLE are the problem, NOT the weapons. Generally, we have lost our tolerance and patience.
I refer to it as "The Falcon cannot hear the Falconer"
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
       THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know

    That twenty centuries of stony sleep

    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

If it came to pass that people are being put into jails for political dissonance, liberals, teachers, etc. then our Republic has failed, and yes, that is "enough" for me, quite simply I would leave the United States.

@"Vikesrock" said:

No, it is not wrong.  You are using collusion as a short hand to criminality.  Conspiracy to commit is a crime as such your example is conspiracy to commit..  There is a very specific reason why collusion all by itself is not a crime.  It's because of election laws.  If collusion was a crime, every single piece of opposition research would be illegal and we would elect no one in this country.  Although this does get murky in anti-trust areas.

Stop fucking doing the damn thing before the game,  and cut the tv timesouts in half.  

First of all, this is not a 1st Amendment issue. That has long been upheld by the courts and is essentially not debatable at this point.

To clarify another thing, this has absolutely nothing to do with the military. I’m not sure how that got conflated but it is purely about our Police.

In my opinion, the reason everyone of these players needed to be stopped has little to do with rights and everything to do with propogating an extremely destructive lie. Everything claimed about the police out there shooting people based in bias is complete and total bullshit. Anyone claiming such a thing to you is willfully ignorant. Every single respected study, even ones conducted by researches outright claiming they expected to find proof of the odious narrative, have shown it to be demonstrably false. This means proven false by objective evidence. Just like science proved with absolute certainty that the officer’s version of events in the Michael Brown case was incontrivertably true.

Sadly, much of society does not care if it’s true or not. They think it’s somehow leading to progress even if it is make believe. In my opinion it’s exactly the opposite of progressive. Besides being regressive, it’s extremely destructive. Most importantly, it leads to mass cognitive dissonance which isn’t healthy for the individual or the group. 

Thought for everyone’s personal consideration: Do you or people you know remain slient on race related topics that you know to be false claims or do you react like you would with anyone and challenge them to defend their claim? 

If you remain silent, how is that different than the average racist out there? To me there is little difference. Both perpetuate the continued existence of a scientificaly proven falsehood at the expense of society. Both make decisions based on skin pigmentation - something that is just silly.

@"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. 

@"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 $$$.