Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vin

2018 Kickoff and Anthem Rules Changes

Recommended Posts

Public figures are treated differently as far as speech goes. I would love to see what Oochy thinks on this particular matter. Does the extra responsibility to bear as far as slander and libel come with extra peotections when making whatever statement they make in public whether on the job or not? I think that would be an interesting argument to make but I haven't heard of any legal precedent that would suggest that would be the case. Depends on the judges it goes before I would imagine.

 

Conservatives are so dominant politically at ever level right now though that it is probably an extremely inopportune time to try and make that case. It's insane how these moron sjw's have people convinced that our country is moving towards radical leftism. Republicans control Congress, the presidency, most governorships and most state congreases and therefore most judges and DA's. It's not even debatable. It's backed by hard, provable facts lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not odd at all. If in your example, Favre, the restaurant manager played the national anthem prior to starting their shift and told the employees they had to stand to honor the flag, then you would have an equivalent example.

 

The false patriotism the NFL and the Trump administration are trying to force on the players is not an equal analogy to protesting at a different place of work, because the American flag isn't paraded around and the anthem isn't sung prior to starting the day.

Edited by Thanatos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public figures are treated differently as far as speech goes. I would love to see what Oochy thinks on this particular matter. Does the extra responsibility to bear as far as slander and libel come with extra peotections when making whatever statement they make in public whether on the job or not? I think that would be an interesting argument to make but I haven't heard of any legal precedent that would suggest that would be the case. Depends on the judges it goes before I would imagine.

 

Conservatives are so dominant politically at ever level right now though that it is probably an extremely inopportune time to try and make that case. It's insane how these moron sjw's have people convinced that our country is moving towards radical leftism. Republicans control Congress, the presidency, most governorships and most state congreases and therefore most judges and DA's. It's not even debatable. It's backed by hard, provable facts lol.

 

 

Except its not. At all.

 

The last time we had the census was in 2010 and the GOP gerrymandered the districts so badly that we have cases like North Carolina, where the state is split almost 50-50 in terms of vote %, and yet the Republicans hold 9 out of the 12 seats, (75%).

 

Or Pennsylvania, where the districts are so badly gerrymandered that people have given them nicknames like "the man holding a boot" to try to say what they look like.

 

I wouldn't say the country is moving towards radical leftism, mind you, but the idea that because the GOP controls all three branches of gov't atm automatically means we're moving towards the right is just false.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama said on national TV that in the 80's he would be considered a moderate Republican. Big Ronny and The Rapist did a lot to move this country to the right and I think state of campaign finance has pushed even further.

 

I dig your point about the forced Patriotism part about companies not being to make you do that though. Makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its crazy how we havent figured out a better way to deal with this. I mean honestly I actually like the idea of staying in the locker rooms. I was having this discussion the other day about religion in schools, or the pledge of allegiance. Why cant their be a place where everyone can celebrate whatever ti is they choose ? So in our school we had an old library room where if you did not want to participate in the pledge of allegiance you were excused to go study or do whatever it was you wanted with the first 10 minutes of the day. I mean why could we not do that or for Muslim prayers, of Buddhists or whatever the case may be.

 

I don't see why it would be a bad thing that if you did not want to participate in the national anthem, staying in the locker room is a bad thing. There should be no penalty for it, players stay in the locker room all the time. If you they want to take a knee take it in the locker room, I dont see how that is takkng away rights, or even a bad thing. People still know you are angry, they know you are protesting the anthem, really it would just mean you will no longer be the focal point of everyone's attention, which is what the real problem is in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cris Carter said when he played that's exactly what happened and nobody gave a fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cris Carter said when he played that's exactly what happened and nobody gave a fuck.

 

Thats kind of my point. Why is it that now this is some huge ass deal. Is it because less people were unjustly killed back then. Crime stats say that is wrong, so what is different between then and now ? We both know the answer to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And can someone explain how this is a 1st amendment issue ?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Is the NFL the government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that this is going to help, since I know Ngata has me on ignore, so if someone wishes to quote me, feel free:

 

It's a first amendment issue because the President of the United States heavily implied that players should be fired who kneel for the anthem.

 

The NFL absolutely can tell the players what to do, but the facts are that they didn't do so until the President, one of the three branches of government, said that any player who kneeled for the anthem should be fired.

 

It's not a black/white he definitely crossed the line thing, but the NFL appears to have only moved in this manner because the President leaned on them. And that is a first amendment issue, because the President is part of the government and if the government is telling a private corporation what they should do, that becomes a serious problem.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was so much backlash from every day people and from at least one vocal sponsor in Mr. Papa John. And there was a drop in ratings that people, either correctly or incorrectly, labeled as an impact from the kneeling. It's not like Trump said it and the next day the league was like, "Ya, what the President said" and made the change. There was a lot of reasons to do it anyway.

But I do agree that Trump saying it adds pressure because his base gets fluffed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there was pressure from more than the President, I'm just answering why some people consider it a first amendment issue. The government of the US saying a private corporation should fire private employees for doing something is a first amendment issue.

 

As I said, I don't think its black/white whether he crossed the line, but its a pretty shady move and is why its considered a potential first amendment violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think Trump was 100% just being being an entertainer and one that intimately understands his audience. Trump is way in over his head as president and has made a shit load of mistakes but ironically his biggest strength is also his Achilles heel because the guy can't turn it off. He has to boast and sell himself to people and be the center of attention. He also surrounded himself with people like that in his cabinet.

 

Now that all these nutcase Hawks from the Reagan and Bushes administration's and ex CIA have seized power and let Trump be Trump. I think most of it is theater to be honest. I really don't believe Trump was trying to exert any unlawful pressure on owners to force a ban on kneeling. I really doubt he gives a fuck. He just knows his audience. He understands the people that he wins with and he knows how to earn their undying love.

 

I also think it's a speech issue and a workers rights issue. I know a bitch a lot but people have died and been jailed so that we can enjoy the working conditions that we enjoy today. It certainly wasn't always this way but that doesn't mean that we can stop fighting that fight because if we do we will find ourselves in a bad situation and wonder how it happened. I wish we had actual news because to court decisions that are going down on companies being allowed to force people and workers into arbitration is series but I also think there should be a debate and a definition of how much can your free speech be controlled by your employer? Should we look at public figures differently as we do in other cases of speech and law? I think allowing the precedent for an employer to do that, especially without even talking to the players association has the potential to get us into some dangerous territory. We have to be vigilant in keeping the rights our ancestors have fought to us to have.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to make the leap because a president said something thus it's an amendment issue makes no sense to me. If that is the case then people should be making the same conclusion anytime he mentions anything about the private sector. This was taboo long before he said anything, fans were outraged and the NFL was experiencing low viewership.

Trump had nothing to do with the owners trying to protect their business internet. Anybody making this a 1st amendment issue just wants to bitch.

 

I think the workers rights thing is a legitimate way of approaching this and probably the one that makes the most sense, at least, more so than the 1st amendment point anyway. That said The NFL players has a union and the union fucked them on this. At least to the degree this was not already written into the language of the contract already when the last one was negotiated. They elect the union reps, and the union reps represent the ENTIRE body of players who are signatory to the union. So they have to play under those parameters and there is nothing in the contract that prevents the owners from doing this, so honestly they have to shut up and ride it out until the next negotiations.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am again, not saying one way or the other on this. I am merely saying that when the President of the US puts pressure on a private corporation to fire its employees, that is sufficient reason to say this is a first amendment issue.

 

It does not matter if he was just being an entertainer. It does not matter if the owners were going to do it anyway. Trump saying employees should be fired is a problem. Again, I don't know if he crossed the line and overstepped his constitutional bounds, but contrary to Ngata's sweeping generalizations, everyone who thinks this is a first amendment issue is not doing it solely because they like to bitch. It is by definition a first amendment issue. It does not mean that the players 1st amendment rights have been violated, but discussing whether or not they have is an absolutely logical thing to do because of what Trump said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entertainment.

Propaganda.

Distraction.

Bread and circuses.

The one with the most wisdom here (me)

Has now told you what is actually happening. You can now stop having your pretend politics redundant talk.

This is just this year's deflated ball, videotaped practice, wife hit in the elevator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obvious troll post lol. People will still probably be immensely butthurt though :yao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the thing too Charles. NFL committed $90M to civil rights / justice groups . Most of the players that were kneeling or protesting were done with it. There was a few who pulled out of the players coalition, but it was by and large a non issue.

 

Seems like the NFL just wanted to make a statement for whatever reason.

​That's exactly what it's about. They are trying to make the dumbass rednecks around the country who refuse to watch football over this happy and make it seem like they're doing something about it even though nothing really needed to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​That's exactly what it's about. They are trying to make the dumbass rednecks around the country who refuse to watch football over this happy and make it seem like they're doing something about it even though nothing really needed to be done.

 

Re: that bolded part

 

Hang on. You mean by the NFL, or in general? Because I absolutely agree that the NFL is trying to placate stupid rednecks, but I just want to make sure you aren't ignorantly glossing over issues that the protesters have been highlighting.

Edited by SteVo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with every word of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a huge supporter of the kneelers and their message, and I've even gotten huge crap for it on other websites. But I think a majority of players were ready to stop so nothing really needed to happen rule wise from the NFL. But, they wanted to send the message to pissed off 'Muricans hoping to see ratings improve in 2018.

The only message Kneeling gives is- I'm a slave .Beat me down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In their new "Proper Anthem Conduct" policy, the Dolphins reserve the right to suspend players who protest on the field up to four games.

Dolphins Kenny Stills and Jordan Phillips both knelt during the national anthem last season. Per the team's new policy — which has not been released publicly — the Dolphins "could" fine or suspend any player who protests. "Could" leaves a lot of wiggle room, of course. The league and its teams seem to be doing whatever it takes to keep this story in the news. It is a baffling approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×