Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note the language Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The First Amendment draws a distinction between freedoms and rights. So what is a right and what is a freedom? A right is an inalienable privilege that rests with the person. For example, a person cannot be compelled to undergo a beating. Neither a governmental nor civil actor can compel a beating without being subject to legal consequences. Even actors with limited authority to use force (parents administering corporal punishment or law enforcement effecting an arrest) must limit the use of force to no more than necessary.
A right can also be an affirmative action, such as the right to remain silent or the right to vote. If an individual exercises their right they are not subjected to consequences for doing so, and cannot be compelled to forsake the right. If an actor is subject to consequences for an action it is not a right.
A freedom is similar. A freedom is an activity the government cannot prohibit, but an actor is not shielded from consequences for acting. Also, a private entity does not have to allow the activity on their premises. If you miss work to go to church or write a libelous blog your employer can discipline you for doing so. You are free to engage in the activity, but not free from the consequences that follow.
So the anthem protesting, is it truly a right as is being claimed? The answer is undeniably no. Any owner could impose discipline as they see fit for the protests. That is the earmark of a freedom not a right. Which brings us to the question of the boycott. The boycott is a protest against a perceived injustice just as the anthem protests are. The NFL anthem protests and the boycott in reaction are both forms of peaceable protest. They are flip sides of the same coin. Since it is the flip side of the same coin the NFL and all associated should be equally accepting of the boycott. They aren’t, which belies the argument that their actions should be accepted as exercising their “right” to protest which justifies the boycott.
Funny thing, I haven’t heard a single person saying that boycotting the NFL is a problem. On the other hand, our President has said that players excercising their right to free speech, as permitted by their employers, should be fired.
Odd that.
You may not have, but I have. From the players themselves.
Although not from the players, here’s one example after about a minute of searching online for examples.
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/7/16251532/nfl-anthem-protest-colin-kaepernick
Perhaps I read your post incorrectly. When you said:
I assumed you were talking about the people saying that they are boycotting the NFL because they don’t agree with the players silent form of protest during the anthem.
The article you cite actually supports the players, thus my confusion.
I think everyone should read that article.
Whatever position an individual takes on the subject needs to be intellectually consistent. If the players want to protest because of a perceived injustice, they have the freedom to do so. If people seeing the protest perceive injustice from the protests and want to boycott in response, they have the freedom to do so. Both are forms of peaceable protest.. Supporting the protests and ridiculing the boycott, or visa versa, is not intellectually consistent.
Since the league in general supports the players, but not the boycott, they are being intellectually inconsistent and raises questions on do they actually support the right to peaceable protest? By appearance, to date they only support the right when it serves their purpose. That justifies the boycott.
I believe that the article is speaking of boycotting the NFL because of their refusal to give Colin Kaepernick a place to play. Check the dates at the byline.
Speaking personally, I’m not a fan of mixing sports with politics. Frankly I watch sports to get away from the crap of everyday life. So when idiots like ESPN or Kapernick and his buddies drag politics in – well, it really harshes my mellow. So to speak. . . . .
I would be more inclined to sympathy for the players position if it were actually supportable. But the reality is that numerous studies have indicated that there is no evidence of blacks bearing a disproportionate impact from police mis-conduct. In fact a recent student by Harvard University and the Eric Holder Justice Department found that whites were twice a likely to be shot by police as blacks (se this article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/)
In the meantime Chicago has now crossed the 500 murders threshold – that’s 500 murders in the first 8 months this year. That puts them on track for a 750 murder year! The reality is that if you are a black person you are 20 times more likely to get shot by another black person than a police officer. Until I see football players protesting that fact, then I’m reluctant to sympathize. They’re protesting the splinter and ignoring the cancer.
David:
President Trump is an opinionated blowhard who often begins speaking before thinking. He expressed his opinion which I suspect many would agree with. However, the 1st Amendment begins with the phrase “Congress shall make no law. . . . “. The last time I checked, the President has no legislative power and Congress is not considering action against the players.
So, unless “Sons of Bitches” is some kind of secret code for “Will no one rid me these troublesome football players”, Trump has as much right to express his opinion as the players do to express theirs.
Fat, you forgot to mention that the employer has the right to fire an employee who discredits his business. Kaepernick should have been given the heave-ho out of the NFL.
Quite the qualifier you inserted there David. Right to free speech, as permitted by their employer? Must be an amendment in the Constitution of the NFL that Jim Harbaugh referenced.
I inserted the qualifier DanMan because Greg keeps ranting on Facebook that this isn’t a First Amendment issue because Congress didn’t pass a law prohibiting it. So I thought that by acquiescing to his demands, people might have a better understanding of what is happening here.
Clearly I was wrong. I’ve read his post many times, read his comments many times and still do not understand the point he is making.
But hey, he’s a lawyer, you’re a smart guy and I’m just a dumbass.
You’re not a dumbass David. If you say you don’t understand the point I will take your attestation at face value.
The First Amendment applies to governmental action, Let’s say an effort was made to remove the antitrust exemption because of the protests. At that point the First Amendment would apply since the government would be acting in response to speech. In that situation, everyone should oppose the government since it would be a First Amendment violation and the Amendment needs to be protected despite disagreement with the underlying protests.
However, until there’s governmental action the First Amendment offers no protection. It shouldn’t. Society should be able to denounce Westboro Baptist Church protests. The First Amendment does not prohibit society from doing so. Although the NFL protests are not as repugnant as Westboro protests the analogy holds. Society, or at least a segment of society, sees a protest they find to be repugnant and are acting against the protest.
I don’t understand why this is a difficult concept. The 1st Amendment gives the players the right to express themselves. It gives the owners (and the league) the right to express themselves. And it gives everybody else the right to express themselves.
If you want to kneel or sit while the Anthem is played and the flag is raised – that’s your right. If I want to respond by calling you an SOB – that’s my right. If I want to respond by not buying your merchandize or paying for tickets or watching your games – that’s also my right.
If the President wants to comment on the situation – that’s his right!
If Congress wants to intervene – that’s NOT their right. (And they’d screw it up if they tried!)
you’re right
ah…Facebook. Not my playpen.
As a general comment – I watch sports, when I watch, for the same reason that I indulge in any other form of entertainment, so I can escape from the pains and conflicts and hassles of every day life. When ESPN, or the NFL or whatever Actor or Director or writer begin to interject politics and social commentary – particularly when it’s controversial – then it ceases to to be an escape, and I’m going to stop watching.
I’m convinced that the President, while he may have been out of line to say it publicly, voiced the feelings of millions of everyday folk who just want to sit back and watch a freaking football game. Will the NFL survive? Probably. Will I watch NFL football again? Maybe. But as long as the focus continues to be on the antics of a small minority of the players rather than a sporting contest, I’ll haul out a John Wayne DVD and pay no attention to the commotion.
By and large, if anyone believes there will be a meaningful boycott of the NFL, they’ve been smoking some funny tobacco. Rabid football fans willing to shell out over $100 for a seat in the nosebleed section of a mammoth stadium will be there for every game.
This whole brouhaha could have been prevented had NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended or thrown Colin Kaepernick out of the league when he sat on his overpaid ass a year ago. Yes, Kaepernick had the right to express his hatred of the police, but speech can have its consequences. An employer can fire an employee if his behavior brings discredit on the employing agency. Instead, Goodell praised the asshole, thereby encouraging other black players to follow suit. Had Goodell thrown Kaepernick out of the league, none of those money-hungry players would now be disrespecting our flag and country. Money talks, bullshit walks.
The unity players and owners are now displaying are the result of one little mistake Trump made. He called the protesting players “sons of bitches,” which they are. Had he refrained from calling them SOBs, you wouldn’t have Tom Brady and Bob Craft, friends of Trump, joining the protesting players and openly criticizing the president. Except for that mistake, Trump was spot on in calling out those ungrateful, overpaid, disrespectful to our flag and country NFL and other league players.
The bottom line is that if it were not for Goodell, we wouldn’t have this brouhaha today.