Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the calls for a constitutional challenge to the new NFL policy against protests during the National Anthem. While many have claimed that the policy violates free speech rights of the players, there is actually little support for such a challenge under constitutional law. The best shot might be procedural in nature in arguing that the collective bargaining agreement requires conferral on such rules with the players. Putting aside the strong defenses to this claim, it would likely only require consultation and not a change in the ultimate policy.
Here is the column:
The new rule requiring NFL players to either stand for the national anthem or remain in the locker room has produced a firestorm of criticism. Sports Illustrated’s Jimmy Traina called for resistance against the “racist owners” and NBC’s Chuck Todd joined in portraying the policy as “un-American.”Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith cast it as an effort to conceal reminders of “white supremacy.” A Washington Post column called for a challenge and declared, “There would be no NFL without black players.”
But the fact is that the NFL has every right under the Constitution to do what it did. Absent state laws to the contrary, any constitutional challenge would be like a “Hail Mary” without a receiver. No court will rule that employees of a private company have a right under the First Amendment to conduct protests at work against the wishes of their employer.
More than 50 percent of Americans are opposed to protests during the national anthem and support the new policy. Many fans boycotted games and NFL purchases over what they viewed as disrespect for the country. Others view this as a time-honored form of athlete protests, and some 32 percent oppose the new policy.
Ultimately, it is unlikely that the new rule was motivated by simple patriotism among NFL owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Historically, the only thing unfailingly saluted by the NFL is profits, and these protests are cutting into profits. Even if much of the decline of viewership can be attributed to a variety factors, there is an obvious impact on sale and viewership.
In the end, it is actually a stronger case to argue the bottom line in defense of this policy than the patriotism of the owners. The NFL is a business dedicated to making money. It has determined that these protests are bad for business. Period. The First Amendment protects against government actions against free speech, not private companies like the NFL. Even if that were not the case, it is doubtful that a court would find the arguments of the critics particularly compelling.
If these critics are correct, employers could not determine how their businesses would operate vis-à-vis employees and customers. It would mean that a customer ordering a latte or a tire change might have to listen to a political diatribe or watch a protest for any cause of the employee’s choosing. If NFL players can protest police brutality, can they also conduct protests for “Blue Lives Matter” or pro-life causes? Could players carry out continual protests of different grievances, or would owners have to chose between worthy and unworthy protests?
The NFL rule still allows players to register their disapproval during the national anthem and the absence of players will not go unnoticed. There is no “compelled patriotism” since there is no compelled participation. Conversely, players could simply pay the fines. New York Jets owner Christopher Johnson has offered to pay the fines for his players.
In his Washington Post column, Shaun Harper, executive director of the Race and Equity Center at the University of Southern California, insists this is an abusive action by “a majority white group of overseers” targeting black athletes. He argues that those objecting to the protests are often hypocrites who express “the spurious outrage over alleged violations of freedom of expression on college campuses.”
Since I am one of those who have objected to the rapid decline of free speech on campuses, I would point out a rather obvious distinction omitted by Professor Harper: Students are not employees. If anything, they are closer to customers. They pay to go to colleges and universities to engage in intellectual pursuits that require free and open discourse.
A true education requires freedom of thought and expression, which are guarantees long defended by academics. That freedom is being heavily curtailed and often directed against conservative faculty and students. For public universities, the First Amendment applies, unlike within the NFL. In private institutions, there are contractual claims that can be pursued, unlike NFL players who agree to play by the rules set by the NFL.
While only “guidelines,” the NFL game operations manual states that the “national anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the national anthem. During the national anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.”
The NFL rulebook itself directly bars political speech by players, such as “wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration” which “relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns.” The new rule actually loosens that guideline.
The one contractual basis that could be raised would be the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners requiring conferral on many issues. However, this is not a constitutional claim and the prospect of a successful contractual challenge is slim.
The critical missing element in any constitutional challenge remains state action. Strangely, President Trump seemed to rush to fill that void in a highly disturbing Twitter suggestion that protesting could have bearing on whether players should remain in this country. Rather than simply celebrate the reversal of the prior policy allowing protests, as he long advocated, President Trump stated, “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.”
Being a U.S. citizen means you have a right to protest. Just as critics often wrongly portray those objecting to protests during the national anthem as hostile or blind to racial inequality, it is equally wrong to suggest that protesting players are somehow lesser Americans. These players care about this country and are seeking to use their positions to raise awareness of an ongoing problem. That is what good citizens do in our national discourse. You simply do not have the right to protest anywhere at anytime in any way of your choosing.
In the end, it is not about good versus bad citizens, or even the meaning of our national anthem. The liberty is protected not only by constitutional inclusion but omission. Some questions are left by default to the state or the citizens. This is one of those cases. For better or worse, the ultimate resolution to this question will rest with the owners, players and fans.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
NFL players make millions annually in salary and complain that they should not be asked to stand for one or two minutes during the recital of the national anthem. Cry me a river.
Disappointing. Of all days for posting this garbage. Turley, you tout yourself as a history buff, but you couldn’t wait a day? Where’s your post recognizing the fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guard that have stood the watch and sacrificed so much so you could be free to even have this blog.
Have a blessed Memorial Day everyone!
Aren’t you the holy one today.
Yes Olly, you certainly declared yourself to be treading the higher moral ground by demanding that Professor Turley write an entire article NOW for Memorial Day. But you yourself can only manage to perform a tribute to the holiday with one sentence. That is quite slacktivist of you I would say.
Exercise your outrage against others for non-compliance, perform a comparable pittance of lip service for your cause, expect others to fawn over you with praise
You’re welcome Darren!
Darren:
You can’t have “holy” without “oly.”
See your original comment for sanctimonious BS and apply this comment, too.
It’s JT’s call, but I could have stood to see a nice tribute to the fallen who gave their lives for us.
I questioned the call, not his right to make it.
Lawyers can rub themselves raw over just about anything. The bottom line is the hypocrisy of the players. They make, collectively, hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet, the vehicle for expressing their views seems empty, the media. The anthem is not to blame for the problem. The media is probably the biggest culprit. So, the appropriate response would be for these multimillionaires to buy time on the networks and express themselves there. Perhaps a commercial during the game would be more effective. They have the money. They would not be limited to the duration of the anthem. They could design their points. This might lead to more dismissals through outing. ETC. When the players kneel they show they really don’t care, are just pi**ed off. Those watching become pi**ed off about the anthem and not the problem at the root. All the rest is BS.
Respecting one’s country – in this case, the US, means protecting civil rights, diversity, multi-culturalism. Those who fail to respect those principles, often think that glorifying war somehow demonstrates love of country. It doesn’t. It demonstrates love of violence.
Dear Mr. Bacon: There is a time and place for everything. If kneeling players need to go to great lengths to explain their message, then their approach is off. In this PC on steroids world we live in, why are kneeling players or lefty media not concerned about offending the majority of Americans who set aside that one minute out of 10,080 minutes during a week to honor our military? Perhaps I am missing something but after NFL coughed up $$$ for social justice issues last year, I did not hear about players matching those $$$ or recall seeing protests led by players on their days off, or off-season. Time and place Dude.
This is not a “civil rights” issue. Civil rights protect individuals from excessive government power. The government is not involved in this dispute.
The American founders were the least diverse group of leaders you’d ever want to see. And they were excellent. Must really P.O. the Diversocrats. Maybe that’s why they want to pull down their statues. Diversity isn’t an American value, assimilation is. It’s e pluribus unum not the other way around.
Respecting one’s country – in this case, the US, means protecting civil rights, diversity, multi-culturalism.
No, respecting one’s country does not mean subscribing to cant.
@Chris P Bacon May 28, 2018 at 8:08 AM
“Respecting one’s country – in this case, the US, means protecting civil rights, diversity, multi-culturalism. Those who fail to respect those principles, often think that glorifying war somehow demonstrates love of country. It doesn’t. It demonstrates love of violence.”
There seems to be a self-deceptive disconnect in many peoples’ minds between glorifying war and glorifying military service in war, as though one were possible without the other.
Defenders of the US Constitution should ask themselves how many of the US military actions that they’ve supported or even directly participated in were authorized by Congress as the Constitution requires, and even more important, they should consider the indisputable truth of what the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, knew about organized homicide, aka war, in addition to its obvious slaughter and dismemberment of human beings: its destruction of freedom:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” [Emphasis added]
—James Madison, Political Observations, Apr. 20, 1795 in: Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 4, p. 491 (1865)
NFL snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this issue. They agreed to cough up cash last year for social justice issues which was not matched by players. Then owners get all squishy on the issue again during this off-season. NBA was decisive on issue leading into this season (stand-up for anthem) with no push-back from players or fans. NFL roster spot is a premium job for a young man. Office Depot, McDonald’s, etc do not allow kneeling/protesting on the job for its employees nor should NFL. The social justice issues that players wish to bring to the forefront are perhaps real but that does not give them the green light to determine workplace rules as they go or infringe on what standing for the flag means to the majority of Americans. That one minute out of 10,080 minutes of the week is not the time (or place) to kneel. Players have days off during the season and off-seasons to use their brands to deal with these issues to which NFL already agreed to cough up $$$ last year.
The social justice issues that players wish to bring to the forefront are perhaps real
They’re not real.
Only in your playpen.
David Benson still owes me a citation from the OED. Regardless of their reality or legality, the workplace is no place to demonstrate. It is costing the NFL money. Money talks, bullsh$t walks. If the players want to demonstrate so much, let them negotiate a lower salary in exchange for that privilege.
Dear Nut: I believe there is some validity to these issues and believe there can be two concurrent truths (1) social justice issues and (2) time and place to deal with those issues. It is up to employer to decide on such workplace policies and NFL is well within its rights to implement a stand or stay in locker room policy. As I believe Churchill once said:”If you appease the aggressor, the aggressor becomes more aggressive.” The moment the NFL coughed up $$$ for social justice issues, they should have immediately put an end to kneeling with a hard stop.
There is no validity to them. You have fewer than 400 persons shot dead by police officers in a typical year. We have a satisfactory idea that very few are questionable because the narratives behind the showcase incidents have a habit of falling apart. You have over 600,000 police officers in this country who have scores of contacts with the public every day. Yes, you will have mishaps given a sample that size and yes you will have abusive officers as well. There is no indication it is a systematic problem or that the complainers have the slightest idea of how to improve training and technique to reduce the number of killings.
These pseudo-protests are a diversion for the people who engage in them. In so engaging, they don’t have to devote much thought to the actual quality-of-life deficits the black population faces or the workable ways of ameliorating those deficits. Because they cannot bear the answers to these questions.
Mr. Nut: You seem to want to argue about the merits of the kneeling protests themselves. Generally speaking I believe we can do better with race relations in this country based on my personal experiences and observations. Anyway the kneeelers’ are entitled to their opinions and you are entitled to refute their opinions. All of this however belongs outside of the workplace.
You can improve the condition of the public square in substance. You cannot improve ‘race relations’ because there are cadres with an interest in not improving it and a critical mass listen to them.
@Insufferable,The World’s Foremost Authority May 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM
“There is no validity to them [the protests]. You have fewer than 400 persons shot dead by police officers in a typical year.”
Kudos for more of your ignorant and evidence-bereft pontificating, Insufferable. I hope you’ll share your insight with the researchers at The Washington Post, whose tracking indicates rather more than 400 people killed by the police in the US each year: 995 in 2015, 963 in 2016, and 987 in 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/
While you’re at it, you should also set them straight at The Guardian:
“The figures illustrate how disproportionately black Americans, who make up just 13% of the country’s total population according to census data, are killed by police. Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.
“An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis
I’m familiar with the actual survey research conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, not the rubbish the Post published courtesy of some double-counting intern.
You can be familiar with all the government numbers you want.
The government numbers come from law enforcement self reporting and a significant portion of police departments do not report at all. Further of those who do, the methodology varies all over the place.
Government numbers are useful to follow trends, they are not useful to track actual police shootings.
Yes, the sources like WaPo and Fatal Encounters make errors – and are prone to double counting.
But the best source of data we have on police shooting IS news reports not BJS.
Regardless, NEITHER dataset demonstrates a racial shooting bias on the part of police.
There are too many bad cops, and SOME are racist.
But there is ZERO evidence of systemic racism.
And the trends in police shootings are DOWN
@Insufferable, The World’s Foremost Authority May 31, 2018 at 8:41 PM
“I’m familiar with the actual survey research conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, not the rubbish the Post published courtesy of some double-counting intern.”
LOL.
This is another example of why it’s so difficult to take you seriously. Even casual observers (without an authoritarian mind-set) have long known that the self-reporting of police departments has been statistically worthless:
“A Lack of Data
“The landscape of police shootings is surprisingly thinly explored. The FBI is charged with keeping statistics on such shootings, but a Post analysis of FBI data showed that fewer than half of the nation’s 18,000 police departments report their incidents to the agency. [Emphasis added]
“The Post documented well more than twice as many fatal shootings this year as the average annual tally reported by the FBI over the past decade. The FBI and the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics now acknowledge that their data collection has been deeply flawed. FBI Director James B. Comey called his agency’s database ‘unacceptable.’ Both agencies have launched efforts to create new systems for documenting fatalities. [Emphasis added]
“The FBI will replace its current program with a ‘near real-time’ database to be made public by 2017, said Stephen L. Morris, a senior FBI official whose division is responsible for collecting crime data.
“ ‘We are responding to a real human outcry,’ Morris said. ‘People want to know what police are doing, and they want to know why they are using force. It always fell to the bottom before. It is now the highest priority.’ ”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/?utm_term=.13bfde87d5f0
This is no doubt a good example for explaining your denigration of investigative reporters: they frequently come up with exposes of official (often longstanding) corruption, and that’s anathema to political reactionaries.
Ken Rogers – the largest killers of blacks are other blacks, not cops. And even higher than that is Planned Parenthood aborting black babies. So, let’s not get our panties in a twist here.
@Paul C Schulte May 31, 2018 at 10:01 PM
“Ken Rogers – the largest killers of blacks are other blacks, not cops. And even higher than that is Planned Parenthood aborting black babies. So, let’s not get our panties in a twist here.”
Oh, well, if that’s the case, then we needn’t concern ourselves about the number of unarmed “blacks” and other ethnic groups who are killed annually by US police.
As I don’t wear panties, getting them in a twist hasn’t been a concern for me personally, but I can nonetheless sympathize with those for whom it is.
Ken Rogers – we should always be concerned with unlawful killings like those by MS-13, an El Salvadoran gang that preys on teens and kills teens. However, there are only so many resources to go around. How many unlawful killings of blacks are there by cops in the US each year and how many unlawful killings of blacks by blacks are there in Chicago each year?
Black people are killed by police in the SAME proportion as they are reported to police as having committed crimes. BTW the overwhelming majority of police reports of blacks committing crimes are by blacks.
Black on black killings are about 2.5 times white on white killings
Police violence against blacks is directly proportionate to the difference in violence overall between blacks and whites.
There are a few areas where statistics actually show a racial dispartity that does not track other trends that can not be driven by racism – such as prison sentencing.
But there are only a few areas where there is any possible evidence of systemic racism.
By the way, some of these national anthem ceremonies get quite pricey. Who’s paying for all of USAF flyovers?
Rules to live by:
1. Being an entitled, anti-American ingrate is bad for business in America if you’re selling a service.
2. Businesses exist to engage in good business.
3. If you own a business and your hired help doesn’t understand 1 & 2, get new hired help.
PS nobody cares about the NFL. Anymore. Look at the bleachers at game time.
Not at your place of work. JT is right on this one. 🙂 The NFL took a serious hit financially last year and they can’t afford another one. Plus, they are scared of Trump getting involved again. 😉
Where is the citation for that statement?
Tony – there are three statements there. Which do you want the citation for?
The left insists on Gleichschaltung. This policy is an assertion that football is not subsidiary to political life nor are games an occasion to make political points. We wouldn’t have this controversy if some ignoramus hadn’t insisting on striking attitudes on the field. (BTW, his substantive position on the issue is nonsense).
Sooo, my question is, why would a millionaire black NFL’er even want to identify in the first place with dead criminal drug dealing negroes who usually get popped resisting arrest??? And then, why would the same black NFL’ers whine if they get pulled over for Driving While Black???
Because if you want to express your solidarity with black criminals, simply because you are the same color as them, isn’t getting harassed by the Five-0 a sign that you have succeeded???
But the answer is, if you are black, then you are supposed to whine a lot about racism, and then maybe the nice white people will give you some free stuff!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Making Stuff Up again.
It’s hard to believe that you actually believe the things you write.
OK, your alternative explanation is what?
The premise of these protests is inane and the setting quite random. Kaepernick was hired to play football, not to strike political poses.
Okay, Squeek.
Gee, Squeeky, we’ve missed your racially-charged comments. I guess it takes a bold ‘reporter’ to call it like it is; linking Black millionaires to criminals in one, broad stroke.
But gee, Peter Shill, isn’t that exactly what the black NFL’ers are doing??? Linking themselves in solidarity to black thugs and druggies? Like they are in the same boat as them, just because of their skin color? It’s stupid, and just an excuse to hop on the black victim train.
I guess I should take a knee for old Poor Old Bonnie, who was a white female, and got gunned down along with Clyde by the police without even the chance to surrender. And don’t you dare bring up that it was way back in the 1930s because blacks are still whining about slavery and that was over 150 years ago.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – I thought Bonnie and Clyde got taken out by bounty hunters. 😉 It was an ambush.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmUpso_xT8
A fellow I correspond with said the scene was rather novel at the time. He’d been quite disturbed by it and thought a barrier had been breached which shouldn’t have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjSshSvQWQA
I think Faye Dunaway made gruesome ending scenes her signature.
No, it was LEO’s. And not too far from where I am. From Wiki:
“Barrow and Parker were ambushed and killed on Wednesday, May 23, 1934, on a rural road in Bienville Parish, Louisiana.[83][110] The couple had appeared in daylight in an automobile and were shot by a posse of four Texas officers (Frank Hamer, B.M. “Manny” Gault, Bob Alcorn, and Ted Hinton) and two Louisiana officers (Henderson Jordan and Prentiss Morel Oakley).[111]”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky –
Squeeky – Hamer was a hired gun. From Frank Hamer in Wikipedia.
Hamer, though he had accepted the assignment, balked at the compensation — just $180 a month, less than half his current pay.[16] Simmons reiterated that Hamer would collect his fair share of the reward money, then sweetened the deal by authorizing Hamer to take whatever he wanted from among the Barrow Gang’s possessions when he caught them.[16] As they were taking leave of each other, Simmons said he wouldn’t presume to tell Hamer how to do his job, but his suggestion for getting Barrow and Parker would be to “Put ’em on the spot, know you’re right — and shoot everybody in sight.”
As you can see Hamer didn’t exactly have clean hands.
Now, I am more convinced than ever that I should take a knee for Poor Old White Girl Bonnie Parker who was gunned down like some kind of animal. Lest we forget!
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
PS: I haven’t seen Dead Pool 2 yet. Tonite I mean to watch Veronica on Netflix, which is supposedly sooo scary that people are quitting it half way thru. I will cuddle up in my Dad’s oversized recliner with my cats and my knives and a gun or two.
Squeeky – shooting the tv is not an appropriate response to the film. 😉 I am re-watching Deadpool.
shooting the tv is not an appropriate response to the film.
No, but the idea of a man in his undershirt shooting the TV set when something irritates him is pretty funny. Cast Teri Garr as his exasperated wife.
DSS – they used to make sponge-rubber bricks you could throw at the tv when you were upset. 😉 Those were the days.
In Indianapolis recently the local police shot an unarmed black man in the back, 11 times no less, as he attempted to flee following a traffic stop. The whiny, skinhead-appearing white officers cried before the police merit board , which was deciding whether they should be fired, claiming they feared for their lives. Three guesses as to the outcome. The victim’s name was Aaron Bailey.
If I had the forum of an NFL player, I’d take a knee, too. In fact, I’d do more than that, probably. When there are so many examples of injustices in this country, how can anyone who isn’t a racist ignoramus fail to be outraged? What is the national anthem anyway? An expression of what this country allegedly stands for? When there is sysrematic injustice, those passionately believing in American values have every right to peaceably make their voices heard. Anyone who believes otherwise is no patriot. Attempting to intimidate others to remain silent because they disagree is likewise no American.
Natacha – two boards found them not guilty. What the hell do you want? Aaron Bailey, driving on a suspended license fled from a traffic stop, threw a gun from his car, crashed into a tree and then appeared to go into the console to look for a gun. The officer rightly fired at him 11 times, hitting him 4 times. Did you see his rap sheet? He is not Mickey Mouse.
Paul, those are facts. They don’t trump her feelz.
But did you see the crybaby skinhead cops, echoing what their FOP lawyer told them to say: that they feared for their lives…..from an unarmed man….running AWAY from them….SO… they had to shoot him no less than 11 times….IN THE BACK. Didn’t even try to wing him by hitting him in the leg. He was running AWAY at the time he was shot in the back. He wasn’t reaching for anything. He didn’t have anything in his hand. No weapon. He was in someone’s yard, not in the bushes where there could be a concealed weapon, when he was murdered.
We don’t execute people for their “rap sheets”, which prove nothing. We don’t execute people for fleeing from the police when they do not present any danger whatsoever, much less a clear and present danger.
If you weren’t a racist ignoramus, if black cops systematically murdered white motorists who flee from them and consistently get away with it, this sort of testimony would turn your stomach.
But did you see the crybaby skinhead cops, echoing what their FOP lawyer told them to say: that they feared for their lives…..from an unarmed man….running AWAY from them….SO… they had to shoot him no less than 11 times…
You haven’t a clue what his attorneys told him and the man was not shot 11 times.
Natacha – he was running away in the car and stopped only because he crashed into a tree. Evidence showed he could only have been shot in one spot if he was turning and reaching for something, either in the console or underneath the seat.
You really have to read ALL the testimony, not just that part that you like. And if push comes to shove, if you happen to shoot someone or run over someone, use that excuse. That is your best bet. You always have a right to protect your life.
Natacha:
Poor Aaron Bailey. Led cops on a chase while tossing a weapon from his car with a murder suspect in the passenger seat. He then refused orders to show his hands and reached into the car’s center console before being shot. Here’s what really happened:
“In Howard’s testimony Wednesday, the officer described what he knew during his initial stop of Bailey. Bailey failed to use his blinker until midway through changing lanes, Howard said, and his license had been suspended.
Howard said he knows it’s “nerve-wracking” to be pulled over without a license, so Howard said he tried to remain calm at the traffic stop.
He comes across suspended drivers all the time, Howard said. “I tell them all the same thing … We will work through this.”
Bailey’s behavior, however, was different from most suspended drivers, Howard said.
“His hands were shaking. His voice was wavering a little bit. He was nervous,” he said.
When Howard walked back to his patrol car with Bailey’s identification card, Howard pulled up information about Bailey in his computer. Howard learned that Bailey was involved in two incidents of resisting law enforcement and robberies, including one that was an armed robbery. He also saw 15 police interactions and nine arrests, Howard said.”
Armed robbery, resisting arrest and only nine arrests? Bailey was destined for sainthood!
Is lying and misrepresentation the Left’s only stock in trade?
That’s like saying all white people are dumbass ignoramist racists like you.
Typical Natacha – – – facts are sooo racist!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeek:
She’s such a stereotypical radical. And the term is pronounced “raciss.” The “t” is silent to distinguish it from real racists.
If this “rule” is only a guideline why will fines be levied? Is the NFL still being paid for the National Anthem ceremony?
Well: Doesn’t public money go toward the construction of their stadiums?
Therefore like a public university, maybe Constitutional rights do extend. Or give the money back. All of it. Immediately. With interest.
Public money should not go tot he construction of stadiums.
Regardless, you are arguing against yourself. – If government can not limit free speach, it can not limit the owners on a speech issue either.
I would further note that Turley likely misrepresents the collective bargaining issue. Collective bargaining is a contract dispute – it does nto matter whether it is one player or a thousand. Either their contracts have clauses to cover this – or there is no issue. Further players are actually minority owners.
They may litterally find themselves on the losing side of shareholders fights if they challenge this.
I would dinally note – not only is this NOT an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
It is actually how free speech and all rights work.
A right is something that can not be FORCABLY infringed on.
All government action is force.
The Owners can not LITTERALLY put a gun to players heads to stop protests.
But fans can protest, They can avoid games, Owners can respond, Players can protest.
Everyone remains free to choose.
The freedom they DO NOT have is the freedom to control others – to demand that fans what and pay for games that contain protests they do not like.
This is no different from PETA picketing mcdonalds or the left picketting chick-a-filet.
This is actually how free speech works.
Players remain free – to protest, but not without cost.
Further even if they do not have the appropriate clauses in their contracts – NOW, they are free to seek them in the future
I doubt that will succeed, but they are FREE to try.
Again that is how freedom works.
I expect this will all die down in a few years and we will see the protests return.
So long as they do not trigger the fans significantly, that is fine.
These protests were a mistake.
It is CLEAR that players FAILED to gain the support of sufficient fans.
BTW it is NOT majority support that is necescary – but SUPERMAJORITY support.
The NFL probably can not survive 10% of fans abandoning football over protests.
Well: Doesn’t public money go toward the construction of their stadiums?
I drive to a political rally on public roads, ergo what’s said at the rally is subject to judicial decrees.
The NFL players ought to study the NAACP playbook more closely. Run the “race card” play when you don’t get your way! It even rhymes so it’s easy to remember.
Unfortunately, I have to agree the remedy here is through the collective bargaining agreement. From the scope, insight and thoughtfulness of many of the comments from the players, I’ll wager that the issue will be front and center at the next negotiating session.
I doubt it.
The financial harm to the NFL last season was significant.
The NFL would have to demand incredible financial concessions from players.
I doubt that ALL players would take a big pay cut so some can protest.
I find JT’s commentary on this issue a very sound analysis and think that the players should lodge their protest for not being consulted in advance of the new policy’s announcement, and if the owners insist on retaining the current policy, the protesting players should accept it and act on it by staying in their locker rooms until after the national anthem has been played.
As JT notes, “The NFL rule still allows players to register their disapproval during the national anthem and the absence of players will not go unnoticed.”
It is not sound or unsound, it is just how it is. It is both constitutionally correct, and possibly more important properly respecting actual individual liberty, and natural rights.
Once again, Professor, it seems you are not supported by intelligent minds. Think before you post. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/25/17394422/nfl-knee-kneeling-labor-law-kaepernick-free-speech-protest-owners
Nope, he is just supported by natural rights and the actual constitution – as well as logic.
As Turley’s peice pointed out you can not have a free speech right in your participation in something owned by others.
Turley notes the issues if workers started usijng their employment as a platform for prolife or prochoice speech.
But it goes beyond employment.
Do others have the right to come into your home and say what they please and you are obligated to allow them, you can not insist they leave ?
An actual right can not compel consequences for others.
Employees or guests can not force team owhers or home owners to bear the cost of the employees actions.
Your free speach rights are YOURS, you can NOT demand access to a platform owned by others.
You make the presumption that Vox has intelligent minds… I’ve found that not to be the case
Here is what your “intelligent minds” at Vox had to say…”But in a more direct, literal sense, what the players are protesting is the requirement that they stand during the national anthem. That’s what the protest is: a refusal to stand.”
I stopped reading at that point, the article was becoming too stupid to put up with .
Hollywood, thanks for the article, a much more thorough look at the issue.
“While only “guidelines,” the NFL game operations manual states that the “national anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the national anthem. During the national anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.”
The NFL rulebook itself directly bars political speech by players, such as “wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration” which “relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns.”
It would seem that the NFL cannot both bar political speech and at the same time demand the players participate in political speech by demanding they ” stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking,” while the National Anthem is being played?
I still await to read anything posted by you resembling an enigma. Everything you type is reminiscent of an “indoor” DNC slave.
If you read Turley’s article, or the new rule, you’d know your last paragraph is moot. The NFL “demands” players chose between standing at attention on the field OR staying in the locker room, typing at Enigma’s favorite social media how they are “persecuted Negroes” (who just happen to earn 80x the average US salary).
Enigma, this is such a dumb issue to even post about so here’s my one time….when your employer makes it known what is and isn’t acceptable during work hours, that’s the rules the employee must abide by….if the employee doesn’t like it, they have a choice….accept or leave…pretty simple, end of story
Actually they can – as noted the rulebook is guidelines.
While there is a legitimate contract issue – one that players ultimately must lose, because regardless of what contracts MIGHT say now, they will not allow protests for long if they do not already bar them.
Nor business will contract to its own destruction.
Regardless players are free to make whatever demands they want – individually or collectively, and owners are free to say no, and players are free to strike, and ……
In the end – the fans have spoken and they are going to win.
It would seem that the NFL cannot both bar political speech and at the same time demand the players participate in political speech by demanding they ” stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking,”
That counts as ‘political speech’ only in your addled head.
Not only political… but forced.
I tend to agree but forced only if they choose to take the field.
There will be retributions against those who choose not to take the field. Likely led by the President the next time he needs a distraction.
@Insufferable May 28, 2018 at 5:11 AM
” ‘It would seem that the NFL cannot both bar political speech and at the same time demand the players participate in political speech by demanding they “stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking,” ‘
“That counts as ‘political speech’ only in your addled head.”
Please explain, Professor Corey, what makes public flag-burning political speech, but not public oblation to the State?
Please explain, Professor Corey, what makes public flag-burning political speech, but not public oblation to the State?
Burning a flag is an act of arson. Respecting ceremonial custom is something you do when you are part of a community.
And my name isn’t Corey.
@enigmainblackcom May 28, 2018 at 1:17 AM
“It would seem that the NFL cannot both bar political speech and at the same time demand the players participate in political speech by demanding they ‘stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking,’ while the National Anthem is being played?”
But the owners don’t now require that behavior, offering players the option of remaining in their locker rooms until after the Star Bangled Banner has been played.
Do you think there will be no retribution against those who stay in the locker room? You must not know Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Laura Inghram, et al.
…And what are Sean Hannity and Laura Inghram going to do? …Report the news?
Hannity himself will tell you he’s not a newscaster. he’s an entertainer, giving red meat to those who believe whatever he says.
I’m waiting for what you are so afraid he will say. Will he report the news? Is that your fear. Even opinion writers can report the news.
The first person I mentioned was the President, he has already said that “people” who won’t stand and respect the flag in the manner he prescribes should leave the country.
Regarding Hannity, he has it in him to be an excellent newscaster. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, when it was all hands on deck, he displayed that capacity. It’s rarely been seen since. I believe lately he’s been going on about spies planted in the Trump campaign, bolstering Trump’s attempt to brand it that way.
I agree with the President but won’t force them out and neither will he.
As far as Hannity and his belief in spies in the President’s campaign, he’s right. You agree with the facts but what you are doing is playing games and trying to use words that don’t have the same implications even though at the present the implication is very possible.
Now let us get back to the subject matter something you always stray away from because it involves reality.
“I’m waiting for what you are so afraid he [Hannity] will say. Will he report the news? Is that your fear.”
@enigmainblackcom May 28, 2018 at 8:13 PM
“Do you think there will be no retribution against those who stay in the locker room? You must not know Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Laura Inghram, et al.”
What kind of “retribution” can they bring to bear? Kaepernick has made clear what he’s protesting against, and if the three people you mention want to dishonestly or ignorantly tax him for that and/or for being “unpatriotic,” so what? Let’s face it: the only thing that will make many of our fellow Americans happy is if he quits being uppity, quits calling attention to so-called police brutality, and starts acting grateful to every NFL fan, racist or otherwise, who’s made him a millionaire.
Here’s some background on Kaepernick, and nothing in it suggests to me that he’s going to cave to people who just want to drink their beer, be entertained by modern day gladiators, and not think about so-called social problems that don’t directly affect them:
“Colin Kaepernick and the Powerful Religious Act of Kneeling”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/24/colin-kaepernick-and-the-powerful-religious-act-of-kneeling/?utm_term=.39c4efefcf12
Ken Rogers – I would rather see his stats on the field.
@Paul C Schulte May 29, 2018 at 5:39 AM
“Ken Rogers – I would rather see his stats on the field.”
I understand. I’m more interested in him as a fellow human being and Christian who’s concerned about the well-being of others, and you’re more interested in him as a professional football player and his present and potential value to his owners.
We all have our priorities.
Ken Rogers – as someone who has both hired and fired people, I am concerned if he can do his job. If he was Tom Brady he could have had sex with the tight end on the 50-yard line at halftime and they wouldn’t have done anything. However, he is not. He is a third-string quarterback with iffy stats who is costing the team money. Not much of a decision at rehiring time.
Paul C Schulte May 29, 2018 at 12:57 PM
“Ken Rogers – as someone who has both hired and fired people, I am concerned if he can do his job.”
You had already confessed your quite limited interest in Kaepernick and what he may have to say. Why are you belaboring the point?
I’ve hired and fired people, too, by the way, but doing so didn’t limit my interest in them to their job performance, as they were people, first, and employees, second.
Ken Rogers – I couldn’t afford to keep people on who were not doing the job. Young lives were affected. The sooner I could replace them with someone competent the better.
Ya’ll still taking about this?
It seems that Turley’s shifted his stance since the first brouhaha.
Does anybody really care about this?
Sick stuff, really, that the anthem is even played at a commercial event.
Your employer could demand as part of your employment that the anthem be played first things as work starts. And you could go elsewhere if you do not like it.
Freedom does not means being able to do whatever you wish without consequences,
It means being able to do whatever you wish – while others have the same freedom – such as fans choosing not to watch games, and Owners choosing not to use players who protest.
Sick stuff, really, that the anthem is even played at a commercial event.
Try to be less blatantly contrived in your opinionating.
“Sick stuff, really, that the anthem is even played at a commercial event.”
I’d love to know what you consider “sick stuff”. A lot of commercial places have American flags out front today. Is that sick as well. Should the American flag be removed from all public forums? Do you find it sick that some school children cite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the day?
Your third pragraph from the end was interesting. Couldn’t one argue this policy was initiated by President Trump who insulted the few players that were doing it? He was front and center and changed things from a quiet expression suggested by a military veteran to a hate filled mess. Trump exactly provided the state action with his public announcements, just like his rhetoric in the travel ban impacted that case. Now the owners are doing their part. The failure to inform the NFLPA just iced the lousy cake.
It would not matter.
Fans may have gotten the idea to counter protest from Trump – but no one forced them too.
You are free to protest Trump over this – but my guess is Trump has not inflamed the passions of anyone who was not already frothing mad at him anyway.
Trump did not provide “state action.” the state did not act.
Trump’s remarks were no different from Obama’s exhortations to his followers.
I have no idea if the Owners informed the NFLPA – or were required to.
But I am surprised this lasted this long.
You do not seem to grasp – the fans have spoken. The NFL will capitulate or fail.
No player has a job without fans.
In fact no player has a job with a 10% loss of fans.
No bussiness can or will endure a sustained 10% loss.
Nor do players have the right to impose the cost of their actions on others – the owners.
He was front and center and changed things from a quiet expression suggested by a military veteran to a hate filled mess.
All portside politics is a hate-filled mess. Your complaint is hypocritical.
The players may contractually have surrendered their rights, but if you can burn the flag, you can take a knee!
You don’t have a right to burn the flag at work either.
On your front lawn? Sure.
At work? Only if your employer says you can.
Of course you can.
You can do both in any public forum you wish.
You can do both in your own home.
What you can do outside space you control or public formums is between you and the person who actually controls or owns it, and has nothing to do with rights.
You can’t burn a flag on the job if your employer forbids it.