NFL’s Proposed National Anthem Rules

[Sparko]

I'm not concerned about 'too much free speech', I'm concerned that the institutions themselves are allowing so much one-sided 'free speech'.



It's amazing to me that you see higher education, where there is supposed to be academic freedom, and the NFL - where it's all about ratings - on the same par. Stunning, even.



At Colleges / Universities, students (or their parents or grantors) actually pay money there to get an education, part of which is the free exchange of ideas. These institutions frequently seem to favor one side far more than the other.

in the NFL - advertisers, sponsors, fans and 'risk management firms' (bookies) go there to be entertained and/or make money, and the players are paid big money to play the game. It is not intended to be about "the free exchange of ideas".



As well it should be, because you're comparing Apples to Porcupines.

Not to mention, there is a world of difference between students rioting to prevent someone from speaking and fans being upset and not watching a football game in protest.

[Cow Poke]

Seriously, though, Roy, it's not about the anthem alone - it's (to me) about people who are being paid YUUUUUUGE sums of money to play games as members of a TEAM who decide to focus the attention on THEMSELVES and their own causes while on their employers' dime. The fact that they choose to do this during the anthem is just a major aggravating factor.

If they wanted to call a press conference, or be a guest speaker at a rally or event, I really don't give a flip. That, of course, would depend upon the contract they signed with their EMPLOYER.

[Cow Poke]

Not to mention, there is a world of difference between students rioting to prevent someone from speaking and fans being upset and not watching a football game in protest.

That too.

[carpedm9587]

Pretty much

No, you did not.

Correct - that was NOT a question.

Yet another person trying to read minds....

So, to be clear, at no point did I assume your reaction was based on your history as a police officer. I did wonder if it was, hence my statement. You are right that I did not explicitly ask you a question, because I did not put a question mark at the end.

If someone said to me, "I have to wonder if your physical disability is influencing your point of view," my response would be "No, I've thought about that and it is not." I would not assume, on the basis of that statement, that they have come to the conclusion that my physical disability is having that effect - they are merely raising the possibility.

Apparently, you read these things differently than I. I'll try to remember that for future conversations.

And I'm sure all of that will earn me yet another "dodging/dancing" gif...

[carpedm9587]

Not to mention, there is a world of difference between students rioting to prevent someone from speaking and fans being upset and not watching a football game in protest.

Yes - there is.

[carpedm9587]

Seriously, though, Roy, it's not about the anthem alone - it's (to me) about people who are being paid YUUUUUUGE sums of money to play games as members of a TEAM who decide to focus the attention on THEMSELVES and their own causes while on their employers' dime. The fact that they choose to do this during the anthem is just a major aggravating factor.

If they wanted to call a press conference, or be a guest speaker at a rally or event, I really don't give a flip. That, of course, would depend upon the contract they signed with their EMPLOYER.

So when a player promotes their "March of Dimes" initiative during a half-time interview, or makes a pitch for "Habitat for Humanity," or stops and says a prayer in the end zone after a touch down, or wears special emblazoned cleats to promote a good cause, do you have similar responses? "That self-promoting so-and-so has no business promoting these initiatives on their EMPLOYERS dime!"

Or is this response limited to the causes you don't happen to agree with (e.g., like many police officers exhibiting implicit bias in the execution of their duties) at a specific time (e.g., the anthem) you don't agree with?

[Sparko]

Yes - there is.

Be careful you just agreed with me and tanked your own earlier comparison.

[Cow Poke]

Carpe, I'm beginning to see why others find dialogue with you so freakin frustrating....

I don't think I ever said "colleges = football." Obviously there are differences.

Yet you say....

The point was that there is parallelism between the two.

So you add in a word to make it sound like you didn't say what you said, and ... sheeeeeesh!

And yet, the squelching of ideas is being done in both venues. An individual's ability to express themselves non-violently is being squelched.

The venues are as different as puppies and hand grenades. (OK, slight exaggeration)

Don't get me wrong, CP - I recognize the NFL as the employer has every right to limit the activity of employees.

ESPECIALLY when those employees are getting paid YUUUUUUUUGE bucks to represent the TEAM.

The point that is being missed is that they would not HAVE to do this if the right was not pig-piling on these players,

pig-piling?

taking massive offense at a simple protest, all whipped up by Mr. Trump. It's not the NFL I fault; it's the members of the right who are doing, in this venue, what they are accusing others of doing in other venues.

wow -- as Sparko pointed out, the left seems to resort to riots and mayhem, the right chooses to oppose the issue and boycott.

No - I'm comparing "silencing a message I don't want to hear" with "silencing a message I don't want to hear."

That's what you THINK you're doing. You're totally missing the point. They can say whatever they want wherever they want ON THEIR OWN DIME. This is like going to a concert to hear somebody sing or do a comedy routine, and, instead, the launch into politics.

I think you folks

"you folks"?

seem to be under the impression I am finding fault with the NFL.

Not my impression - my impression is that you're defending "young men" (rich athletes) focusing the attention on THEMSELVES to advance their OWN agenda, when they are being paid YUUUUUUGE money (did I say YUUUUUUUUGE?) to be a TEAM.

I am finding fault with the people who are working to squelch the speech. The NFL is just their tool. I wish they had a better spine, but I don't really expect them to. Dollars talk, as we well know.

What's a boycott? Both the left and the right do that. And both complain when the other does it. It happens, it's life. Anybody else who has an employment contract does not have an unlimited right to "free speech" during working hours - but it's OK if they're "rich young men"? (get the reference? )

[Cow Poke]

So when a player promotes their "March of Dimes" initiative during a half-time interview, or makes a pitch for "Habitat for Humanity," or stops and says a prayer in the end zone after a touch down, or wears special emblazoned cleats to promote a good cause, do you have similar responses? "That self-promoting so-and-so has no business promoting these initiatives on their EMPLOYERS dime!"

I actually almost suggested that they could do that during half-time, actually, when the focus was not supposed to be on the flag during the national anthem.

Or is this response limited to the causes you don't happen to agree with

If they were making anti-abortion speeches during the National Anthem, I'd be just as opposed.

(e.g., like many police officers exhibiting implicit bias in the execution of their duties) at a specific time (e.g., the anthem) you don't agree with?

I'm beginning to think you're far more interested in argument for the sake of argument than you are conversation.

[Sparko]

PS - It was not Trump who started all this. It was Kaepernic. And conservatives were upset about it when he did it and it was all over the news and then he got "fired" and then eventually others started doing it too and people got more upset and THEN Trump chimed in with a comment that they should be fired. Trump got on the bandwagon, not the other way around.

Kaepernick was also the one who was wearing police pig socks before and got in trouble for it. It was not the BLM. They also just got on the bandwagon later.

[Cow Poke]

PS - It was not Trump who started all this. It was Kaepernic. And conservatives were upset about it when he did it and it was all over the news and then he got "fired" and then eventually others started doing it too and people got more upset and THEN Trump chimed in with a comment that they should be fired. Trump got on the bandwagon, not the other way around.

Kaepernick was also the one who was wearing police pig socks before and got in trouble for it. It was not the BLM. They also just got on the bandwagon later.

I wondered about that, and was checking into that, but this is a good opportunity for Carpe to blame Trump, so....

[Cow Poke]

So when a player promotes their "March of Dimes" initiative during a half-time interview, or makes a pitch for "Habitat for Humanity," or stops and says a prayer in the end zone after a touch down, or wears special emblazoned cleats to promote a good cause, do you have similar responses? "That self-promoting so-and-so has no business promoting these initiatives on their EMPLOYERS dime!"

Calm yourself, Carpe, your "self-promoting-so-and-so" nonsense is nowhere near my attitude toward these players, and it's disingenuous of you to imply it is. I think, when you get challenged, your "I'm such a nice guy" facade begins to slip.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe, I'm beginning to see why others find dialogue with you so freakin frustrating....

Yet you say....

So you add in a word to make it sound like you didn't say what you said, and ... sheeeeeesh!

There is a world of difference between "parallelism" and "equality." I can draw parallels between different mammals, that doesn't make a dog a man.

The venues are as different as puppies and hand grenades. (OK, slight exaggeration)

You think?

ESPECIALLY when those employees are getting paid YUUUUUUUUGE bucks to represent the TEAM.

Why on earth do I care how much they are getting paid?

pig-piling?

Yes - I actually choose that term purposefully. That Trump is goading the right to do amounts to pig-piling, IMO.

wow -- as Sparko pointed out, the left seems to resort to riots and mayhem, the right chooses to oppose the issue and boycott.

The left? The right? Some kids on the left are rioting. The left is not out in the streets rioting. This is the equivalent of saying, "the right is promoting a racist agenda" because racist groups tend to self-identify as "right wing." The left also chooses boycotts (e.g., the Laura Ingraham boycott) and members of the right came out of the woodwork decrying it as an assault on free speech.

That's what you THINK you're doing. You're totally missing the point. They can say whatever they want wherever they want ON THEIR OWN DIME. This is like going to a concert to hear somebody sing or do a comedy routine, and, instead, the launch into politics.

And the speakers on a college campus can say whatever they want anywhere they want, but the college campus is a business environment and has a right to reject what they don't want to have on their campus. And if you don't like what they choose, send your kids somewhere else...

"you folks"?

Not my impression - my impression is that you're defending "young men" (rich athletes) focusing the attention on THEMSELVES to advance their OWN agenda, when they are being paid YUUUUUUGE money (did I say YUUUUUUUUGE?) to be a TEAM.

Again - I have no idea how the amount they are being paid applies, or how their taking a knee for a cause during a song at the beginning of the game compromises their ability to function as a team. And it is your POV that they are trying to focus attention on themselves. Most I have heard speak want to focus attention on the problem - and are using their status as celebrities to do so in a quiet, non-violent, respectful manner. I'm not seeing a problem.

What's a boycott? Both the left and the right do that. And both complain when the other does it. It happens, it's life. Anybody else who has an employment contract does not have an unlimited right to "free speech" during working hours - but it's OK if they're "rich young men"? (get the reference? )

I don't know how we got from "taking a knee for 2 minutes" to "unlimited rights." You are tending towards hyperbolic statements. And you are correct that the right has every right to boycott. Both sides do it. No question about it. I find the entire hoopla about this entire thing to be a tempest in a teapot. A few young men take a knee during a song in protest. Big deal. Good on them for shining a light on a situation that needs to be looked at.

IMO, this is a Trump-ed up (pun intended) issue that both sides have just fallen in line to give Mr. Trump exactly what he wants: attention. And he gets to land with both feet on a racist agenda, pleading "no, it's about respect and the flag" all the way, roping most Republicans and probably all Trumpublicans along with him (though for most of them I suspect it is about flag/police, not about race).

[carpedm9587]

I actually almost suggested that they could do that during half-time, actually, when the focus was not supposed to be on the flag during the national anthem.

If they were making anti-abortion speeches during the National Anthem, I'd be just as opposed.

Actually - these two lines align with at least part of what I said. You objection appears to be that it's during the nation anthem and it's about the flag, but not so much about the specific thing being protested.

I find the protest to be silent, respectful, and appropriate. We're unlikely to agree. I suspect we see the anthem and flag in different terms.

I'm beginning to think you're far more interested in argument for the sake of argument than you are conversation.

Color me surprised. I am pretty sure I haven't heard that (or some variation on it) for almost 5 minutes now...

For the record - I'm interested in both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[carpedm9587]

I wondered about that, and was checking into that, but this is a good opportunity for Carpe to blame Trump, so....

I recommend you do check. Sparko's list of events is accurate, to my knowledge. But the general media coverage was relatively muted - until Trump chimed in and began pounding the drum in tweets, at his rallies, and any other speaking opportunity where he could wedge it in. The number of players involved and the media coverage skyrocketed at that point.

And I agree that some of the players have done/said inappropriate things (e.g., the pig socks). I don't support or condone those. I have no problem with taking a single knee during the anthem.