The Knee

I served as a medic in Nam, '67 - '68, and was there during TET. I'd go again. Thank God I'm now too old! Seriously, it's very complex. I think it's our right to stand for the Anthem or to take a knee. I do not view the players taking knees as 'disrespecting the flag or the military'.
They're expressing concern about other facets of our culture and system and government and saying, in effect, that the Government is not living up to the ideals expressed in the Flag or the Anthem and until it does, they will protest peacefully and silently their opposition to the status quo and those in power glibly 'respecting' the Flag while disrespecting and ignoring the ideals embedded in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We fought for everybody's right to disagree peacefully and not be punished for expressing that right. That is the backbone of our entire form of Government.
 
The cause is real and admiral. The protest is offensive and divisive. I finally agree with Trump on something. If I own a private business and one of my employees is doing something that alienates my customers, I absolutely should have the right to discontinue employment. They retain freedom of speech and I don't have to compensate them while they are representing me and my organization. That's fair.

Regarding the actual protest, it is completely ineffective. It does not make me want to discuss the real issues of racial inequality in our country. It only draws me to a completely separate issue.......which is showing proper respect for those who have served, paid the ultimate price, and lost loved ones while I enjoy living in the safest country on earth.

Actually, the fact that the conversation is often over the method of protest only VALIDATES Kaepernick/s/other's points. We have such a sick fetish with the military in this country that we now prioritize kneeling during a 1 minute 30 second song over people being wrongfully profiled/abused by law enforcement. Our veterans and current military are heroes, however the flag and anthem are absolutely not owned by them nor are they the only ones who have fought for and sacrificed for our "liberties and freedoms." Last I checked, activists for the black community, women, Jews, Muslims, the LGBT community, Hispanics and many others have all lost their lives or have been harmed standing up for, winning or protecting liberties. Sorry, but the flag and anthem are not owned by the military and the military doesn't get to hog credit for standing up for liberties and freedoms, especially those of minorities in this country.

Not sure how much the movement will spread to players in college basketball, but I can tell you that this St. John's fan right here will be sitting for the anthem in solidarity with those who expect more from our country when it comes to law enforcement practices, racial profiling and accountability for those who abuse their power.
 
The players use their First Amendment right to protest.
The President uses his First Amendment right to criticize protest.
Supporters and detractors use their First Amendment right to support or criticize players, the president, each other.
People are talking.
No one has (yet) killed each other over this.
Democracy works.
The Republic still stands.
Next.

Seems to be a wide array of arguments about why players shouldn't take a knee, but only one argument of why a player can take a silent knee during the national anthem. That player is exercising his freedom to protest in a non-confrontational, non-violent way. The first amendment rights don't get taken away from an American citizen because they make too much money, or because they are a celebrity, or because tax dollars contribute to their success. It's the players' right to exercise their first amendment right, it's your right to have an opinion, and as MainMan wrote above, it's all democracy in motion. The president's right to free speech is protected in the same way the players' rights are protected. If a sports team owner actually fired a player because he took a knee during the anthem, and the player sued, who wins that one? Players are bound by contracts with rules and terms set by the team, as well as the overall rules of the league. So when the president suggests for team owners to fire players, he's suggesting something that has no legal standing, and although many consider remarks like that to be misguided and stoking a fire, it's his right to make that comment on his own celebrity platform paid for by US tax dollars. Is it a good use of his first amendment rights? Luckily we are all protected to have our own opinion on that.

sounds all right and logical except you are missing one crucial point regarding rights and that is that your rights end where mine begin. So yeah take a knee. Join a line, sing for peace. Harass your scum sucking politicians. I am all for it. There are so many outrageous things going on and people having a voice is crucial. But if you are a celebrity, it is self serving and outrageous for you to be doing so at the expense of other people who disagree with you. So go play ball in your backyard and have fun. Take millions and become a public figure and you have responsibilities beyond your personal beliefs or opinions. That doesn't mean that you don't have rights but you have a role and corresponding rights and duties. The other side of this is that when celebrities lose that sense of responsibility they then become propagandists. Either knowingly or unknowingly. So those freedoms that you and I both want and espouse are being undermined.
 
Sorry but the NFL is full of crap here. Their is no expected first amendment right to protest while you are on the job getting paid. However, if the NFL allows the players to use the platform then they condone and they own it. Given the claims of racism regarding Kaepernick and his failure to find another job, the NFL with the help of the President, have spun this to act like they are now some unified group. Against what or against whom is unclear. Complete nonsense. But guess what? The focus is now on Trump and not some racist narrative regarding CK. I think its sad but brilliant

I for one, do not turn on sports to watch, hear, think or care about politics. Players have a right to protest but on their own time. I pay for the right to watch football without politics. Just imagine what door is being opened here. Maybe you agree with the players or maybe you don't on the issue. What happens when another issue comes? Is this what the NFL is selling?

Finally, it is my opinion that the players and the NFL (for allowing it under their brand) disgraced themselves for kneeling for our National Anthem on foreign soil yet standing for another National Anthem. My grandfather was shot 3 times in Europe fighting the Nazis and suffered with those wounds till the day he died and kneeling for our flag is deeply offensive to me and my family. Our flag stands for many things for many people and I know I personally will stand for our flag above all others. It is not perfect but it has stood for a lot more good than evil in the world.
 
I just personally think it's stupid to try and tell the players when and where to fight for their cause.

I don't like the anthem being disrespected, I don't agree with the act, but I'll stand by these peaceful protests, as opposed to situations in the past like Ferguson or Charlottesville, where people resort to violence, and lives are lost, while protesting.

Would you support a player peacefully giving the Nazi salute during the national anthem? Or flipping off the crowd?
Or peacefully displaying a I heart the Khmer Rouge tattoo during a dance? Or Bill Belichick peacefully wearing a MAGA hat or a KKK hood for that matter on the sidelines? Do you think tortured dwarf Bob Costas and civics expert Terry Bradshaw would rise to the defense of those actions protesting the status quo? How do you think the NFL would react?

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy no matter who or what you believe in. I tried in my post. I think I failed. Well said.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?
 
The players use their First Amendment right to protest.
The President uses his First Amendment right to criticize protest.
Supporters and detractors use their First Amendment right to support or criticize players, the president, each other.
People are talking.
No one has (yet) killed each other over this.
Democracy works.
The Republic still stands.
Next.

Seems to be a wide array of arguments about why players shouldn't take a knee, but only one argument of why a player can take a silent knee during the national anthem. That player is exercising his freedom to protest in a non-confrontational, non-violent way. The first amendment rights don't get taken away from an American citizen because they make too much money, or because they are a celebrity, or because tax dollars contribute to their success. It's the players' right to exercise their first amendment right, it's your right to have an opinion, and as MainMan wrote above, it's all democracy in motion. The president's right to free speech is protected in the same way the players' rights are protected. If a sports team owner actually fired a player because he took a knee during the anthem, and the player sued, who wins that one? Players are bound by contracts with rules and terms set by the team, as well as the overall rules of the league. So when the president suggests for team owners to fire players, he's suggesting something that has no legal standing, and although many consider remarks like that to be misguided and stoking a fire, it's his right to make that comment on his own celebrity platform paid for by US tax dollars. Is it a good use of his first amendment rights? Luckily we are all protected to have our own opinion on that.

sounds all right and logical except you are missing one crucial point regarding rights and that is that your rights end where mine begin. So yeah take a knee. Join a line, sing for peace. Harass your scum sucking politicians. I am all for it. There are so many outrageous things going on and people having a voice is crucial. But if you are a celebrity, it is self serving and outrageous for you to be doing so at the expense of other people who disagree with you. So go play ball in your backyard and have fun. Take millions and become a public figure and you have responsibilities beyond your personal beliefs or opinions. That doesn't mean that you don't have rights but you have a role and corresponding rights and duties. The other side of this is that when celebrities lose that sense of responsibility they then become propagandists. Either knowingly or unknowingly. So those freedoms that you and I both want and espouse are being undermined.

This is all an (excellent) argument for your opinion, which you are of course is a right that you are very much entitled to. I'm guessing you were largely describing the NFL players taking a knee, but if you left out one sentence "So go play ball in your backyard and have fun" you could easily be describing the behavior and potential fallout of our president.
 
I just personally think it's stupid to try and tell the players when and where to fight for their cause.

I don't like the anthem being disrespected, I don't agree with the act, but I'll stand by these peaceful protests, as opposed to situations in the past like Ferguson or Charlottesville, where people resort to violence, and lives are lost, while protesting.

Would you support a player peacefully giving the Nazi salute during the national anthem? Or flipping off the crowd?
Or peacefully displaying a I heart the Khmer Rouge tattoo during a dance? Or Bill Belichick peacefully wearing a MAGA hat or a KKK hood for that matter on the sidelines? Do you think tortured dwarf Bob Costas and civics expert Terry Bradshaw would rise to the defense of those actions protesting the status quo? How do you think the NFL would react?

The bottom line is, as always, the bottom line. That is, dollars and cents. The NFL will react to anything and everything in whichever way will most benefit the NFL financially.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

To my non-brilliant legal mind, it seems like more non-owners are complaining about the whole company time thing than the guys who actually own the teams.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

I'm far from brilliant, but it's pretty cut and dry. The NFL is a private company with an 85 page rule book that has no requirement for standing during the anthem. The NBA I believe has a rule that players are required to stand during the anthem. I don't know what the NCAA rule is, but I know we will all be finding out very very soon.
 
I look at it differently. First, keep in mind that no NFL team stood for the Anthem before 2009. The military paid NFL owners to have their teams out there for the Anthem to boost military recruiting for the war du jour.
Hence, I think it's a player's right to stand or take a knee according to their conscience.
They're not being paid to stand for the Anthem or to take a knee. They're being paid for their football ability.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

To my non-brilliant legal mind, it seems like more non-owners are complaining about the whole company time thing than the guys who actually own the teams.

I believe you are correct LJSA. The NFL has allowed their platform to be hijacked. Therefore, they own it. So where does it stop? Do they crackdown should a group oppose abortion or perhaps an anti-gun rights group decides they have enough player support to make a statement. Pandora's box is now open.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

I'm far from brilliant, but it's pretty cut and dry. The NFL is a private company with an 85 page rule book that has no requirement for standing during the anthem. The NBA I believe has a rule that players are required to stand during the anthem. I don't know what the NCAA rule is, but I know we will all be finding out very very soon.

Speaking of cut and dry, does this law apply to NFL players?


36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem

(a)Designation.—
The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.



Does should mean shall? If so, should an organization that systematically breaks the law receive benefits from the government that promulgated it?
 
I think it's a player's right to stand or take a knee according to their conscience.
They're not being paid to stand for the Anthem or to take a knee. They're being paid for their football ability.

Do you think it's a counter person's right to give you the finger with your change at McDonald's according to their conscience without their you or the employer having a say about their behavior? After all, they're being paid for their ability to cook hamburgers.
 
This debate is like the death penalty or abortion, good valid points on both sides that will never get hashed out in our lifetime and doesn't make you a good or bad person on your stance.

I have a general problem with athletes and celebrities getting involved with politics because most of them just do not have the sufficient knowledge to intellectually discuss the topic they are giving an opinion on. There are of course a few exceptions to the rule when you do have actual informed people trying to protest or give an opinion. IMO, unless you have all the available facts, you do not have a right to your opinion when it could hurt/disrespect other people.

I am a naturalized citizen from Iran, so I have different view points on many things, however, no matter what my view point is I consider myself American in all respects and would never ever disrespect any military person that risks their life for this country. Personally I find it offensive when citizens here that unlike me go back generations take freedoms for granted and feel that they can do whatever actions under the cloud that it is a free country. Try this stuff in the Middle East and you will get dealt with real quick and on your way to the "after life". My beef is that if this is such a bad place to live then move or if you really care about the issue try to make change by actually doing something productive to implement change or provide awareness. IMO there are injustices all over the world but generally there is less of it here.

Whether appropriate or not the national anthem is played and military people are routinely honored at or given tickets to sporting events. IMO, this is not a place for an athlete or celebrity to demonstrate a political opinion, this should be left for after work hours off the field. They can get the same point across after working hours as they have the medium to do so by television or social media.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

To my non-brilliant legal mind, it seems like more non-owners are complaining about the whole company time thing than the guys who actually own the teams.

I believe you are correct LJSA. The NFL has allowed their platform to be hijacked. Therefore, they own it. So where does it stop? Do they crackdown should a group oppose abortion or perhaps an anti-gun rights group decides they have enough player support to make a statement. Pandora's box is now open.

Maybe keep the teams in the locker room during the anthem. That's how it goes in NCAA football. It would require a rule change, so probably not something that comes up until the current collective bargaining agreement is up unless both sides felt they needed to address it sooner.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

To my non-brilliant legal mind, it seems like more non-owners are complaining about the whole company time thing than the guys who actually own the teams.

I believe you are correct LJSA. The NFL has allowed their platform to be hijacked. Therefore, they own it. So where does it stop? Do they crackdown should a group oppose abortion or perhaps an anti-gun rights group decides they have enough player support to make a statement. Pandora's box is now open.

I doubt it. The left believes that speech with which it disagrees is divisive and reactionary and therefore can be suppressed to the extent it is permitted at all. Which is why it's socially acceptable to for a marxist to punch a nazi. Flip that scenario and it's a hate crime.
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

I'm far from brilliant, but it's pretty cut and dry. The NFL is a private company with an 85 page rule book that has no requirement for standing during the anthem. The NBA I believe has a rule that players are required to stand during the anthem. I don't know what the NCAA rule is, but I know we will all be finding out very very soon.

Speaking of cut and dry, does this law apply to NFL players?


36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem

(a)Designation.—
The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.



Does should mean shall? If so, should an organization that systematically breaks the law receive benefits from the government that promulgated it?


OK: "should" does not mean "shall." Obligatory language would require the word "must"
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

To my non-brilliant legal mind, it seems like more non-owners are complaining about the whole company time thing than the guys who actually own the teams.

I believe you are correct LJSA. The NFL has allowed their platform to be hijacked. Therefore, they own it. So where does it stop? Do they crackdown should a group oppose abortion or perhaps an anti-gun rights group decides they have enough player support to make a statement. Pandora's box is now open.

I doubt it. The left believes that speech with which it disagrees is divisive and reactionary and therefore can be suppressed to the extent it is permitted at all. Which is why it's socially acceptable to for a marxist to punch a nazi. Flip that scenario and it's a hate crime.

Hence why I believe politics has no place on the field. People will like it when it supports/affirms their beliefs and will loathe it when it is not for something they believe in. Keep in mind I am not even clear what "message" the players are trying to send. Is it Kapernick? Racism in general? Anti Trump?
 
Can one or more of the many brilliant legal minds on this board help us better understand the legality of these protests while being done on company time?

I'm far from brilliant, but it's pretty cut and dry. The NFL is a private company with an 85 page rule book that has no requirement for standing during the anthem. The NBA I believe has a rule that players are required to stand during the anthem. I don't know what the NCAA rule is, but I know we will all be finding out very very soon.

Speaking of cut and dry, does this law apply to NFL players?


36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem

(a)Designation.—
The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.



Does should mean shall? If so, should an organization that systematically breaks the law receive benefits from the government that promulgated it?


OK: "should" does not mean "shall." Obligatory language would require the word "must"


Yes, should is advisory not mandatory. But you skipped the important question. Should an entity that demonstrates contempt for a government that promulgates statutes advising the citizenry of acceptable public behavior accept benefits from that government while simultaneously ignoring those strictures and denouncing the promulgator as fundamentally unfair. If for example the police are a group of vicious racist murders who routinely gin down innocent minorities, why do NFL players countenance the presence of police protection in the stadiums in which they play. I'll answer that one: it's all a sham designed to assuage the consciences of coddled half-educated sanctimonious morons.
 
Back
Top