NFLers Right To Protest (In The Locker Room). Rosa Parks Weeps

"N.F.L. players will be allowed to stay in the locker room during the national anthem, but their teams will be fined by the league if they go onto the field and kneel, according to new rules adopted by owners on Wednesday in an effort to defuse an issue that escalated last season into a national debate catalyzed by President Trump.

Players had previously been required to be on the field for the anthem. Commissioner Roger Goodell said that owners voted unanimously to rescind that rule and to fine teams if their players are on the field or sidelines but do not “show respect for the flag and the anthem.”

“It was unfortunate that on-field protests created a false perception among many that thousands of N.F.L. players were unpatriotic,” Goodell said in a statement. “This is not and was never the case.”

The new policy was adopted at the league’s spring meeting in Atlanta without involvement from the players’ union. It is unclear how individual players will respond to the new rules."

nyt

You have the right to protest...just not in public where protest will be heard. 

Well now the fans have a right to protest by leaving the seats in the stadium empty.

Reminds me of the time George Busch visited New Brunswick NJ.  No protestors were allowed anywhere near the man. A fenced in "Free Speech" area was created about 1/2 mile from where he spoke.

GL2 said:
"N.F.L. players will be allowed to stay in the locker room during the national anthem, but their teams will be fined by the league if they go onto the field and kneel, according to new rules adopted by owners on Wednesday in an effort to defuse an issue that escalated last season into a national debate catalyzed by President Trump.
Players had previously been required to be on the field for the anthem. Commissioner Roger Goodell said that owners voted unanimously to rescind that rule and to fine teams if their players are on the field or sidelines but do not “show respect for the flag and the anthem.”
“It was unfortunate that on-field protests created a false perception among many that thousands of N.F.L. players were unpatriotic,” Goodell said in a statement. “This is not and was never the case.”
The new policy was adopted at the league’s spring meeting in Atlanta without involvement from the players’ union. It is unclear how individual players will respond to the new rules."
nyt

God forbid if the player are thought of as insufficiently patriotic.  

I don't think this is a totalitarian move. The players as U.S. citizens have their right to protest, and protest in public. But at the same time the NFL is a private, for-profit enterprise. Employment in the U.S. is an at-will proposition, and the NFL is free to set its own rules for employees as long as those rules don't run afoul of labor laws.

Let me ask this: say a Main Street private employer (say, the local pizza joint, or auto-repair place, or tax-prep provider) had its employees start protesting something, on-site and during work hours. I don't mean by stopping their work (which the NFL players didn't do) -- say it was something like wearing something that represents the protest. But, these protests drew unwanted media attention and hurt business (as has happened in the NFL). 

Should that employer just let it go in the name of allowing free speech and the right to protest? 

Smedley said:
I don't think this is a totalitarian move. The players as U.S. citizens have their right to protest, and protest in public. But at the same time the NFL is a private, for-profit enterprise. Employment in the U.S. is an at-will proposition, and the NFL is free to set its own rules for employees as long as those rules don't run afoul of labor laws.
Let me ask this: say a Main Street private employer (say, the local pizza joint, or auto-repair place, or tax-prep provider) had its employees start protesting something, on-site and during work hours. I don't mean by stopping their work (which the NFL players didn't do) -- say it was something like wearing something that represents the protest. But, these protests drew unwanted media attention and hurt business (as has happened in the NFL). 
Should that employer just let it go in the name of allowing free speech and the right to protest? 

Just because something is within their rights doesn't make it the right thing to do. And the NFL can hardly be compared to some local small business.

As for hurting business - if that's actually true it's probably due to Trump turning it into a nationally divisive issue. That's not the protestors fault.

Thank God. The Republic has been saved !!!!

Smedley said:
I don't think this is a totalitarian move. The players as U.S. citizens have their right to protest, and protest in public. But at the same time the NFL is a private, for-profit enterprise. Employment in the U.S. is an at-will proposition, and the NFL is free to set its own rules for employees as long as those rules don't run afoul of labor laws.
Let me ask this: say a Main Street private employer (say, the local pizza joint, or auto-repair place, or tax-prep provider) had its employees start protesting something, on-site and during work hours. I don't mean by stopping their work (which the NFL players didn't do) -- say it was something like wearing something that represents the protest. But, these protests drew unwanted media attention and hurt business (as has happened in the NFL). 
Should that employer just let it go in the name of allowing free speech and the right to protest? 

 The typical private employer doesn't require employees to participate in displays of patriotism.  The NFL uses their games as showcases and their players as props in pro-military displays all the time.  Salutes to the flag, salutes to the military, military flyovers, etc. etc.  Compelling employees to support what is in effect a political statement that glorifies warfare is something that the NFL does all the time.  And the NFL is a monopoly.  You want to play professional football, you can't walk down the street and join a competitive league.  So it's pretty unAmerican imho to compel one version of patriotism among employees and banish another.

Not to mention that unlike most workplaces, the NFL is covered by a collective bargaining agreement.  Employers can't unilaterally dictate anything they please without the approval of the union.

Morganna said:
Well now the fans have a right to protest by leaving the seats in the stadium empty.

 Of course they do. However, it’s a national religion so I wouldn’t count on it...except for staged walkouts, like the one you and I funded when Pence flew to a game in order to walk out.

Agree with db - Trump lit the fire. However, I think he’d prefer we stand for the State Anthem of the Russian Federation.

Fans can still buy beer and hot dogs while the anthem's playing, though, right?

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:
I don't think this is a totalitarian move. The players as U.S. citizens have their right to protest, and protest in public. But at the same time the NFL is a private, for-profit enterprise. Employment in the U.S. is an at-will proposition, and the NFL is free to set its own rules for employees as long as those rules don't run afoul of labor laws.
Let me ask this: say a Main Street private employer (say, the local pizza joint, or auto-repair place, or tax-prep provider) had its employees start protesting something, on-site and during work hours. I don't mean by stopping their work (which the NFL players didn't do) -- say it was something like wearing something that represents the protest. But, these protests drew unwanted media attention and hurt business (as has happened in the NFL). 
Should that employer just let it go in the name of allowing free speech and the right to protest? 

Just because something is within their rights doesn't make it the right thing to do. And the NFL can hardly be compared to some local small business.
As for hurting business - if that's actually true it's probably due to Trump turning it into a nationally divisive issue. That's not the protestors fault.

The NFL and a local small business are worlds apart yes, but at the same time they're both for-profit, private enterprises with owners and employees. So given that core commonality, the NFL can be compared to a small business IMO.   

Ever been to a Jets game. You’re fortunate not to get urinated on from an upper deck during the anthem...they are “patriotic,” however.

Here’s a young man (Kaepernick) who basically gave up a dream job to hold to his convictions. It’s gratifying that he’s gotten so much outside support after being blackballed.

Smedley said:
I don't think this is a totalitarian move. The players as U.S. citizens have their right to protest, and protest in public. But at the same time the NFL is a private, for-profit enterprise. Employment in the U.S. is an at-will proposition, and the NFL is free to set its own rules for employees as long as those rules don't run afoul of labor laws.
Let me ask this: say a Main Street private employer (say, the local pizza joint, or auto-repair place, or tax-prep provider) had its employees start protesting something, on-site and during work hours. I don't mean by stopping their work (which the NFL players didn't do) -- say it was something like wearing something that represents the protest. But, these protests drew unwanted media attention and hurt business (as has happened in the NFL). 
Should that employer just let it go in the name of allowing free speech and the right to protest? 

Except for the fact that the military pays the NFL for the "patriotic displays."  I wonder how a court would consider the fact that the military is paying for these activities and the recipients of the money are compelling their employees to support these displays.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/amount-money-military-gives-nfl.html/?a=viewall

Steve said:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/amount-money-military-gives-nfl.html/?a=viewall

The NFL oozing patriotism for pay. I'm not surprised.

Having slunk out of his sewer, a "patriot" comments:

What happened to "Freedom of Speech' is this not now a Constitutional issue?

A truly unbelievable decision by Goodell and the NFL.  But it proves once and for all they are about nothing other than money.  They caved to Trump's demands only to preserve the bottom line. 

The NFL has forfeited its place in history.

OK, I guess I'm a Jets fan now.

"The Jets co-owner on Wednesday said he will pay any fines his players might be subjected to as part of the league's new policy, adding that his players are free to protest without fear of discipline.

"I do not like imposing any club-specific rules. If somebody [on the Jets] takes a knee, that fine will be borne by the organization, by me, not the players," Johnson said, via Newsday's Bob Glauber. "I never want to put restrictions on the speech of our players. Do I prefer that they stand? Of course. But I understand if they felt the need to protest."

.

GL2 said:
OK, I guess I'm a Jets fan now.

"The Jets co-owner on Wednesday said he will pay any fines his players might be subjected to as part of the league's new policy, adding that his players are free to protest without fear of discipline.
"I do not like imposing any club-specific rules. If somebody [on the Jets] takes a knee, that fine will be borne by the organization, by me, not the players," Johnson said, via Newsday's Bob Glauber. "I never want to put restrictions on the speech of our players. Do I prefer that they stand? Of course. But I understand if they felt the need to protest."

 nice surprise from a Trumper family.

Now the president is speculating about removing citizens who don't adhere to his arbitrary standards of enforced patriotism:

“You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there,” Trump told Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade. “Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.” (Kilmeade responded to this blatant attack on free speech with his usual blankness.)

Stoughton said:

Now the president is speculating about removing citizens who don't adhere to his arbitrary standards of enforced patriotism:

“You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there,” Trump told Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade. “Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.” (Kilmeade responded to this blatant attack on free speech with his usual blankness.)
https://splinternews.com/trump-suggests-nfl-players-who-protest-the-national-ant-1826287097

 

 I don't think the teams will like this.  How much money will they lose from all those people at the concession stands buying stuff during the anthem?

Can the owners of a diner require their waiters and waitress' to wear a specific uniform, especially if the company supplies it ?

Conversely, can they disallow the wearing of a shirt with a specific endorsement of a candidate for office?

The best argument the players have, is the exclusion of the Players union from the discussion and conclusion.

Can the owner of a Diner require all employees to pledge allegiance to the Flag at the beginning of their shift?

Can she compel them to stand while she plays the National Anthem?

Can she compel them to stand and bow their heads for a prayer?

Ever notice how when you're told you can't do something it becomes the exact moment when you now WANT to do it?

Personally I think that the players should begin to invent a myriad of new gestures to protest. Turn their backs, stand on one leg, hold their noses. -Anything. I mean is the league really prepared to try and chase this down endlessly? 

I don't think NFL players are particularly known for giving up.

Especially galling that owners are trying to placate the yellow-bellied, draft dodging Thug-in-Chief. 

LOST said:
Can the owner of a Diner require all employees to pledge allegiance to the Flag at the beginning of their shift?
Can she compel them to stand while she plays the National Anthem?
Can she compel them to stand and bow their heads for a prayer?

LOST,  I agree that as general rule compelled speech should be avoided.  Further, a rule that would force NFL players to support the flag, national anthem and other displays when they do NOT support such displays is wrong because IMHO it is compelled speech.  As far as I can tell, the new NFL rule does not compel speech of NFL players (for example, NFL players are not required to stand at attention during the national anthem - they now have an alternative: stay in the locker room).

Are NFL players entitled to hold a protest if they disagree?  Does not appear that right has ever been provided to employees.  However, it troubles me that the player's union was apparently not consulted before this rule change.

SCOTUS quote from holding of West Virginia vs Barnette (reagrding compelled speech):  "We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."  See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html

This is how it starts. First the undocumented, Muslims, the DACA's who he screwed. People that he doesn't want in this country.

Now its football players. It doesn't matter if they're citizens. If they don't stand and respect the flag then maybe they shouldn't be in this country.

If he gets football players in line, to participate in faux displays of patriotism, you can be sure fans will be next. Fans who don't stand and respectfully revere will be given the message, players are patriotic, why aren't you? Maybe you shouldn't be in this country. They can have Pence going to a game and whereupon seeing fans not respectful enough he will leave "shocked" and "disgusted" at the lack of patriotism.

Will next, we be getting the anthem at concerts, movie theaters, at any public venue? Be sure then to stand in a most respectful and reverent manner.

"You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing, you shouldn't be there. Maybe you shouldn't be in the country." - Leader BoneSpurs

POTUS suggests those who don't stand for the flag shouldn't be in the country at all, conservatives remain supportive of him.