How about everybody just stop treating football players’ actions as important? Who cares what they do? They are no more important than any yahoo in the stands. What if the guy selling hot dogs isn’t standing quietly with his hand over his heart, or someone is in the bathroom or still parking the car? Who cares?
I’d agree but, unfortunately too many people care what they think. Just as they seem to care what actors and actresses think, about… almost everything.
Get 'em in grade school, pre-K even. Tell them you need to master a productive skill, before your opinion (shallow as it may still be) means anything other than a dog’s bark.
PG, right on target. If the camera didn’t focus on the guy kneeling, few would notice. I’d like to see the cameras panning to various sellers of beer and hot dogs, see how busy they are. Or how many guys are sneaking into the john during the anthem.
What’s the old saying, no such thing as bad publicity? So is the NFL embarrassed about all this hoopla about a 19 million dollar-a-year backup QB? It’s on the news, people are debating back and forth, NFL is as popular as ever, sponsors are happy, college footballers are dreaming about that average 3 year NFL career and a chance to get your brain smashed and your knees ruined. Play ball!
…according to this article the department of defense PAYS the NFL for patriotic displays at the games including standing on the field for the national anthem.
http://dailysnark.com/nfl-teams-didnt-stand-national-anthem-2009/
@sax I stand corrected! The NFL IS embarrassed, as the article you referenced reveals that until 2009 NFL’ players stayed in the locker room as the anthem played. NFL teams got patriotic in recent years because it was good for business. A 2015 congressional report revealed that the Department of Defense had paid $5.4 million to NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies; the National Guard shelled out $6.7 million for similar displays between 2013 and 2015.’
Oh well, I am glad a little bit of my taxes are going to those struggling owners of NFL teams. I did, I swear I did watch Super Bowl 50, as a fulfillment of my patriotic duty.
This high school player in a wheelchair after surgery made an effort to stand: https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2016/09/18/orem-football-player-using-wheelchair-after-surgery-stands-for-national-anthem/amp/?client=ms-android-att-us
Yeah,now I’m just disgusted by the whole thing.
…and I want my tax money back.
Children don’t even have freedom of speech across the street from quasi-school events! Remember the famous “Bong hits 4 Jesus” case that went to SCOTUS? The kid who just wanted to hold up his sign lost.
The NFL should be equally embarrassed about the phony breast cancer fund raising it does. For the pittance it shares with breast cancer charities, they profit far, far more.
While the Supreme Court has recently narrowed the scope of free speech for students in the vicinity of school sponsored events, that narrowing doesn’t take away a child/adolescent’s free speech rights when it comes to observance/nonobservance of patriotic ceremonies.
The 1943 Supreme Court Case I cited in a previous post is still in force and clearly upholds a student’s right to no participate in any patriotic ceremony in public schools on the basis of their inherent free speech rights to non-participation if they’re so inclined.
’
Poor analogy. A public school teacher can choose to wear a neutral T-shirt, neither pro-Clinton nor pro-Trump. But during the national anthem, a person has to either stand or not stand. There is no third choice. There is no neutral position. Standing is taking one side, and not standing is taking the other side, and the person can’t opt out of taking a position.
Part of what makes America great is that people can do these sorts of things freely. That doesn’t bug me at all. What bugs me is how these things always turn into a big media spectacle that ultimately ends up empowering the person doing it.
I guess I’m just a little tired of everything turning into a “movement”, or becoming a “thing” that everyone talks about.
"Let me ask a related q. Should a public school teacher/coach be allowed to wear a pro-Trump or a pro-Clinton t shirt while on duty? "
Public employees, unlike private employees, have a fundamental right to free speech in the workplace. That said, it is tempered by how that speech affects their job. A teacher wearing a pro trump or clinton t shirt could be seen as being biased against students (really their familes) who support that candidate. A cop wearing a trump button could be perceived by Hispanic folks in the area he patrols as being biased against them, that he wouldn’t care about them and so forth (same with a cop wearing a Hillary button in a pro trump area.
With schools, it comes down to maintaining an orderly school environment. It is why kids are usually forbidden from wearing t shirts with political or social messages and why a teacher could not wear a pro choice or pro life t shirt, it is why school newspapers are censored and can be.
The default because these are public places, though, weighs towards the right of freedom. Thus despite all the attempts over the years to force kids to say the pledge or back in the old days before it was banned, saying prayers in school, have been thrown out as violating the kid’s right to their own beliefs, infringing their first amendment rights, and to put a burden on those rights requires, unlike the private sector, showing how such a limitation benefits the school environment or the public work environment.
It doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with your position. I support everyone right to a peaceful protest. I can’t see how we can have any other position and claim to be a free country. People don’t only have rights when we agree with their cause, position, lifestyle, etc…
Agreed
@musicprnt: I’m not sure where you got the idea that public employees have the right to free speech in the workplace. They do not. Under the 2006 opinion in Garcetti, the government has the right to dictate any speech that is uttered by the employee during the course of their employment. The state couldn’t fire a teacher for wearing a political t-shirt in their spare time, but definitely could do so if they wear it on duty.
Of course, 1st amendment concerns really take second place here. The most likely problem a teacher advocating for certain political positions while on duty would face is in violation of state election law. On the other side, the thing most likely to constrain the state isn’t the first amendment, it’s the teacher’s union/contract.
@demosthene49:
The Garcetti decision limited first amendment rights in the context of an employee speaking officially in performing his job. Whether I agree with the decision or not (and I don’t, among other things, the judges in this case dealt a blow to those who wished to speak up about malfesance in the public sector, for example an ADA finding that the DA’s office was conspiring with cops to suppress the facts of badly acquired warrants and such). On the other hand, if the DA supported let’s say Donald Trump, and the ADA was outspoken of his contempt for him, the DA could not suppress his political speech on the matter.
What I said in my post is that the first amendment with public employees does hold (for example, you can be fired by a private employer who loves Donald Trump, if you supported Hillary Clinton and spoke up about it,in the public sector you cannot) that there can be burdens put on it, but the first amendment is supposed to hold unless it involves the direct working of the job. Thus a teacher has a first amendment right to his religious beliefs, he can write about his beliefs privately, he can campaign for example to ban same sex marriage, but he cannot bring that into the school in his official position as teacher, he cannot do that in the classroom.In the Garcetti case the speech the ADA in question testified in court for the defense, questioning the veracity of some of the statements in an affadavit by a sheriff’s deputy, though the DA at the time had decided to go along with the prosecution even after the ADA made his case (a judge btw agreed annd threw out the motion to suppress the warrant). The ADA claimed he was retaliated against, but what the court found was that the ADA by his actions was not protected by the first amendment because it involved performance on the job, and that is not covered. It would be like a teacher suing to be allowed to wear a pro hillary t shirt or a pro life t shirt or teach his religious views in class, the ruling would be because he was doing so in his official capacity, that the employer had the right to control the teacher’s expression, the way the DA argued that the ADA had acted improperly in pursuant to his official job.
BTW, they didn’t say the government has the right to dictate any speech uttered by the employee during his tenure, they said that they can regulate speech directly related to their official job capacity. Under this, a the DA would have a hard time suppressing an employee from handing out campaign posters for a candidate, or talking about political issues in the workplace, the only thing they can regulate is speech that is directly related to the job and performance thereof. A cop in the locker room supporting Trump cannot be told by a superior to not talk about his support (unless it was causing friction in the locker room), they cannot tell the officer he cannot campaign for trump, but they can tell him not to talk about his political beliefs or show them when on the job, because it affected his job performance.
@demosthene49:
The Garcetti decision limited first amendment rights in the context of an employee speaking officially in performing his job. Whether I agree with the decision or not (and I don’t, among other things, the judges in this case dealt a blow to those who wished to speak up about malfesance in the public sector, for example an ADA finding that the DA’s office was conspiring with cops to suppress the facts of badly acquired warrants and such). On the other hand, if the DA supported let’s say Donald Trump, and the ADA was outspoken of his contempt for him, the DA could not suppress his political speech on the matter.
What I said in my post is that the first amendment with public employees does hold (for example, you can be fired by a private employer who loves Donald Trump, if you supported Hillary Clinton and spoke up about it,in the public sector you cannot) that there can be burdens put on it, but the first amendment is supposed to hold unless it involves the direct working of the job. Thus a teacher has a first amendment right to his religious beliefs, he can write about his beliefs privately, he can campaign for example to ban same sex marriage, but he cannot bring that into the school in his official position as teacher, he cannot do that in the classroom.In the Garcetti case the speech the ADA in question testified in court for the defense, questioning the veracity of some of the statements in an affadavit by a sheriff’s deputy, though the DA at the time had decided to go along with the prosecution even after the ADA made his case (a judge btw agreed annd threw out the motion to suppress the warrant). The ADA claimed he was retaliated against, but what the court found was that the ADA by his actions was not protected by the first amendment because it involved performance on the job, and that is not covered. It would be like a teacher suing to be allowed to wear a pro hillary t shirt or a pro life t shirt or teach his religious views in class, the ruling would be because he was doing so in his official capacity, that the employer had the right to control the teacher’s expression, the way the DA argued that the ADA had acted improperly in pursuant to his official job.
BTW, they didn’t say the government has the right to dictate any speech uttered by the employee during his tenure, they said that they can regulate speech directly related to their official job capacity. Under this, a the DA would have a hard time suppressing an employee from handing out campaign posters for a candidate, or talking about political issues in the workplace, the only thing they can regulate is speech that is directly related to the job and performance thereof. A cop in the locker room supporting Trump cannot be told by a superior to not talk about his support (unless it was causing friction in the locker room), they cannot tell the officer he cannot campaign for trump, but they can tell him not to talk about his political beliefs or show them when on the job, because it affected his job performance.
All rights have burdens on them, and as I talked about the case of schools, there are burdens unique to schools that affect both kids and teacher’s first amendment rights, but they are also limited to things that apply to the job. However, public employees have first amendment rights private employees don’t have because they work in the public sphere, because a public employee works for the government and the government is bound by the first amendment (with limitations, as the court found)
Sorry about the double post,ran into trouble with my session.
@musicprnt: Let’s keep this in the context of education. If the principal supported Donald Trump and a teacher, while on duty, wore a t-shirt that supported Hillary, the first amendment would not prevent disciplinary action. Garcetti permitted government employers to regulate any speech made “pursuant to [the employee’s] official duties.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006).
The only question we have is whether the expression on the t-shirt would fall within the “official duties.” Garcetti also answers this question. Per Garcetti, you are acting according to your official duties when you are “conducting [your] daily professional activities…” Id. at 422. Garcetti did, however, reserve the question of college professors (see, Souter dissent). the 9th Circuit has gone even further, finding that Garcetti does not apply to teachers. Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402, 412 (9th Cir. 2014). That was a question of academic speech though, which I’m not sure would cover a political T-shirt. A general political message, given generally in the course of the high-school teacher’s duties, I have a hard time seeing would not fall under Garcetti.
The greater problem with a political t-shirt is that it could run afoul of state election laws. States often prohibit state resources from going towards political campaigns. That usually includes employee time.
For what it’s worth, I’m with you on thinking that Garcetti is a bad decision.