People have picketed Denny’s for having a history of problems hiring people who do discriminatory things. In essence, Denny’s was subject to protests for hiring jerks who probably were not subject to criminal penalties.
If people wanted to protest your restaurant for keeping an unconvicted but possibly dangerous person on your payroll, would that protest be illegitimate? I don’t think so. It’s a free country and people have the right to protest what they want.
Perhaps they really liked your restaurant, but would prefer not to have a turd like him serving them? Can’t enjoy their meal seeing him there?
They may not be tax exempt but does the NFL enjoy the same exemption from anti-trust statutes that the MLB does?
Discrimination at Denny’s was in the workplace. The protests did not cover what the managers did at home. Whatever one thinks about what the NFL should do about these players, I think we’d agree that they’d fire a player who beat up a fan at the game.
As for calling attention, the Senate is focusing its flashlight to improve the illumination of the media’s searchlight. The only illumination they care about is themselves. A committee who might get on CSPAN is going to get full media coverage.
Sure the Senate can do it - but it is pure grandstanding. Let’s see them cover other professions with more than a few thousand members and I’ll believe they are serious.
No. Baseball’s exemption is unique- and it’s based on sentimentality, rather than any legal principle. (Read Harry Blackmun’s preposterous decision some time, to see what I mean!)
In 2005, the Congress held hearings on the use of steroids in baseball. I would hazard to say that those hearings helped accelerate reform of drug testing policies in all sports.
Were those hearings “pure grandstanding?”
When I think of something as being pure grandstanding, I think of it as having no impact whatsoever other than to draw attention to the person seeking the stage. In this case, I think the hearings helped accelerate reform of doping in sports. I certainly wouldn’t call it pure grandstanding.
Perhaps hearings on domestic violence and sports will end up having a positive effect, too. What bothers you so much to say that the hearing is a total waste of time, when other, similar hearings have had some beneficial impact?
The consideration of whether it made sense to have federal laws about steroid use seems to me a reasonable legislative purpose - not to say that a lot of grandstanding wasn’t involve. Plus. steroid use is mainly confined to sports figures. On the other hand, all jurisdictions already have domestic abuse laws, and the problem is more widespread than the NFL.
If you want to highlight domestic abuse, perhaps you should focus on the abused person. For the NFL, the abuser is idolized by lots of people, so the focus is on him.
The hearings on abuse in the military (different type) are examples of needed ones on all respects.
The laws are already on the books to prohibit what Biogenesis and other shady companies did to give steroids to athletes.
Are you contending that the Congress doesn’t hold hearings on the impacts of domestic abuse unless an athlete is involved? Do I really need to do five seconds of Googling to show that Congress holds hearings on other aspects of domestic abuse?
I’ll happily concede that was pure grandstanding too. It’s not like they suddenly got publicity hungry.
Great - what does dragging the NFL in add to their knowledge of the problem? Besides bringing the cameras. I can see a publicity circus if it highlights a problem which doesn’t get enough attention. This one got plenty of attention.