NFL: Stand for the anthem or stay in the locker room.

[mikecurtis]

@John_Mace

. . . They might have a case, but it’s not going to be because of anything Trump has said or done.

It’s not so clear cut:

"Although the issue isn’t clear cut, I would bet that the Court would view the expression of the President’s views as protected First Amendment speech, as long as he doesn’t back it up with the threat of an exercise of government power,” [NYU law professor and civil liberties expert Burt] Neuborne wrote.

Neuborne joined other experts, like Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College in New York, in saying at the time that the president’s talking about tax retaliation against the league walked up to — and possibly over — the legal line.

The ACLU, too, said it believed Trump’s tax statements were unconstitutional, which it called an effort “to bully the NFL into complying with his view of what is politically correct.”

“The courts have recognized that when government officials threaten punishment or consequences because of protected speech, that in and of itself can chill the speech, in violation of the First Amendment,” David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, told The Post at the time.

and

Harvard labor and industry professor Benjamin Sachs writes that the NFL’s decision this week to force players to remain in the locker room if they wish to protest during the anthem violates both labor laws and the First Amendment.

“The clearest illegality derives from the fact that the league adopted its new policy without bargaining with the players union,” Sachs writes. Kneeling during the anthem, which Sachs says is a clear form of workplace protest, must be discussed with the NFL players’ union before such a policy can be banned.

. . .

The other reason for the policy’s illegality, Sachs argues, surrounds President Trump’s involvement in the issue.

Both Trump and Vice President Pence have taken firm stands against players kneeling during the anthem to protest police brutality and racism. Trump has also publicly called on team owners to change league policy and fire players who participate in the protest.

“The president of the United States has been actively involved in the league’s decision-making process,” Sachs wrote.

. . .

Sachs argued that this pressure from Trump and Pence brings into play the players’ constitutional right to not have their speech censored by the government.

“When the president and vice president of the United States are this intimately involved in encouraging a private employer to adopt a workplace rule, the Constitution should have something to say.”

[elucidator]

@Kearsen

Indeed, and the people that write the checks are deciding they didn’t like them to do it on their dime.
What’s the problem?

It is the will of the Dollar Almighty, blessings and peace, etc.

But lets say you are aware of a wretched injustice, all fired up, set and determined to protest against it. And some guy offers you a fat check to just keep your teeth together and let it be. Some of us would take it and call it their lucky day, others would scorn the attempt, because they feel like they owe it to somebody.

Me, I’d take it, cash it, and protest anyway. I cannot be bought but I can be rented.

[John_Mace]

@mikecurtis

It’s not so clear cut:

and

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d say it’s a petty big exaggeration to say that the president is “actively” or “intimately” involved in this process. Was he in any meetings? Did he even talk to any of the owners? He made several comments at rallies and sent out some tweets. Was there more than that?

[mikecurtis]

Trump called Cowboys’ Jerry Jones 4 times about anthem protests

President Donald Trump tweeted about the NFL for a fifth consecutive day, this time saying he spoke with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones about his desire for players to stand for the national anthem.

“Spoke to Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys yesterday,” Trump tweeted early Wednesday morning. “Jerry is a winner who knows how to get things done. Players will stand for Country!”

“I’m a friend of the President, we don’t agree on many, many matters,” Jones said. “I’m really in practice, apolitical. But I really can’t afford to be when it comes to the Dallas Cowboys and my No. 1 job. We’re addressing the issue in part because [Trump] been very active in the issue. In part, that stirred it up. And because it is stirred up is one of the reasons I’ve drawn a bright line.”

[Chimera]

@John_Mace

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d say it’s a petty big exaggeration to say that the president is “actively” or “intimately” involved in this process. Was he in any meetings? Did he even talk to any of the owners? He made several comments at rallies and sent out some tweets. Was there more than that?

Did you miss his repeated angry pronouncements? Including the one this last week where he said they should stand or shouldn’t even be in this country?

Most powerful bully pulpit on the planet and he says shit like that.

[John_Mace]

@mikecurtis

Trump called Cowboys’ Jerry Jones 4 times about anthem protests

OK, that’s more than I was aware of, but it’s still unclear how Trump is acting in any official way here. There is no Executive Order or Bill passed by Congress.

Bur I think the biggest hurdle the players will have if they try and run this through the courts is that the owners are saying they can sit out the ceremony in the locker room if they don’t want to participate. Maybe the courts will say that unduly stigmatizes the players who choose to opt out, but I don’t think that is likely.

[Miller]

@Silver_lining

With respect for the nation, he should kneel on his own time, not during an event people are paying for. Is that too much to ask?

Considering the gravity of the issue he was trying to bring attention to, yes. That is entirely too much to ask. Football is a triviality. It doesn’t matter. The unfettered use of violence by the state against minority citizens is actually important, and that you value an uninterrupted viewing of men playing a child’s game as more important than that issue speaks directly to the central dysfunction of American society.

[Chimera]

@John_Mace

Bur I think the biggest hurdle the players will have if they try and run this through the courts is that the owners are saying they can sit out the ceremony in the locker room if they don’t want to participate.

Just wait, the bigots will have problems with that too and demanding players be fired, fined, forced to stand.

Which will immediately run smack into that Supreme decision, which doesn’t just apply to the President or schools.

[D_Anconia]

The First Amendment limits the government. No matter how many times President Trump calls or tweets, the NFL is NOT the government.

[bobot]

The cops who without consequence kill black people, are they the government? The anthem sung at football games, is that the government? The flag being held on a horizontal plane above the field, is that the government?

[D_Anconia]

@bobot

The cops who without consequence kill black people, are they the government? The anthem sung at football games, is that the government? The flag being held on a horizontal plane above the field, is that the government?

The cops are the government, the anthem and the flag are not. You knew that already, right?

[bobot]

The anthem is close enough for government work, same with the flag. Let’s just eliminate both from sports. Easy.

[running_coach]

@D_Anconia

The First Amendment limits the government. No matter how many times President Trump calls or tweets, the NFL is NOT the government.

Trump’s tweets are official statements.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday President Donald Trump’s tweets are indeed official statements.
“The President is the President of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the President of the United States,” Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized. Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President’s Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS.

The government is trying to limit speech.

[D_Anconia]

@running_coach

The government is trying to limit speech.

No, it’s not.

Show me a court ruling where the First Amendment applies to private organizations such as the NFL.

[running_coach]

@D_Anconia

No, it’s not.

Show me a court ruling where the First Amendment applies to private organizations such as the NFL.

Trump, as THE face of the government, is calling for restrictions on speech. What’s that got to do with the actions of the NFL? Except for the demand to end the NFL’s tax breaks.

Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2017

But such retaliation against businesses because of their employees’ political expression would violate the First Amendment. Indeed, a mere five years after the Supreme Court first struck down government action on First Amendment grounds, it faced a similar issue.

There’s your fucking court case.

[bobot]

That almost sounds like Trump believes the anthem, flag and country are the same thing. Weird, huh?

[D_Anconia]

@running_coach

Trump, as THE face of the government, is calling for restrictions on speech. What’s that got to do with the actions of the NFL? Except for the demand to end the NFL’s tax breaks.

There’s your fucking court case.

That’s not a fucking court case, it’s a fucking article behind a paywall. Court decisions are a matter of public record, why not link the decision itself? Probably because you cannot.

[John_Mace]

@running_coach

Trump, as THE face of the government, is calling for restrictions on speech. What’s that got to do with the actions of the NFL? Except for the demand to end the NFL’s tax breaks.

There’s your fucking court case.

The first sentence in your cites says:

But such retaliation against businesses because of their employees’ political expression would violate the First Amendment.

But no tax laws have been changed, so it hasn’t happened. Now, the author of that opinion piece (it is an opinion piece, btw) goes on to say:

Indeed, even if Trump’s tweet gets the NFL to restrict the players’ expression — without any legal changes being made, and simply because of the reasonable concern (based on the tweet) that there would be some retaliation by the federal government for that expression — the threat itself may still violate the First Amendment…

Again, though, qualified with “may” not “does”. And, let’s once again remember, there is the opt out clause. The players are certainly free to bring a 1st amendment case to the courts, but it’s not at all clear that they would win.

[Kearsen]

@iiandyiiii

Huh? It’s okay to disagree. I’m not being dishonest. You see kneeling as disprespectful, while I see it as a silent and peaceful protest. I don’t believe that silent, peaceful protests such as kneeling are disrespectful. It’s possible to disagree on this without one of us being dishonest or lying to one’s self.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, in a world where every “argument” such as this one, has to have a winner. Who wins?
I don’t mind the protest. What I do mind is telling the NFL owners what they can and can’t do with their product.

The bottom line is that your right to protest does not trump their right to fine (or fire ) you for protesting on their time.

[Czarcasm]

@Kearsen

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, in a world where every “argument” such as this one, has to have a winner. Who wins?
I don’t mind the protest. What I do mind is telling the NFL owners what they can and can’t do with their product.

The bottom line is that your right to protest does not trump their right to fine (or fire ) you for protesting on their time.

Is refusing to be forced into patriotism a right?