SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
Last month, the NFL announced a new policy for its players during the national anthem: Players are permitted to stay in the locker room during the anthem, but if they go out onto the field during it, they must stand. If any of the players takes a knee, the team will be fined.
Soon afterwards, a Wall Street Journal report confirmed what most have long suspected: That President Donald Trump's public outrage about NFL players protesting police brutality and systemic racism during the national anthem at football games heavily influenced NFL owners to change the rule, and discouraged them from signing players who would protest.
It's all terrible news for those in favor of free speech and peaceful protest, and for those against white nationalism and police brutality.
However, Mark Geragos, the lawyer representing Kaepernick in his collusion lawsuit against the NFL, [...] believes [...] that Trump's direct influence over NFL owners on this issue violates federal law. U.S. Code 227 [which] says that members of Congress or the executive branch cannot "wrongfully influence a private entity's employment decision ... solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation".
A few revelations from the last couple of weeks strongly support Geragos' case here, and it's important to remember that Geragos knows much more about the case than we do--he has taken the depositions of more than a dozen NFL owners, while the public only knows about the depositions that have leaked.
[...] Of course, influencing the private hiring decisions of a company isn't the only part of U.S. Code [227] that needs to be proved; it would also have to be shown that Trump did it for partisan political purposes.
That sounds trickier to prove, but in this case, that's not necessarily true. First of all, Trump's comments were made at a political rally supporting an Alabama Republican candidate for US Senate--an expressly partisan environment. And according to the WSJ, Trump told Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in private conversations that the issue was a "winning" one for him.
Previous: NFL: New National Anthem Rule; NY Jets CEO: Break the Rule and I'll Pay the Fine
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:59PM (14 children)
Bzzzt! Wrong, dipshit. Read the fucking words again.
"Political affiliation" != "for partisan political purposes", dumbass. He has to prove that Kaepernick was targeted specifically because of Kaepernick's political affiliation. So he's going to have to prove it wasn't because of Kaepernick's actions, beliefs, or speech. He's also going to have to prove it wasn't simply because it was politically expedient for Trump. The above is going to be all but impossible given that a great many people have assumed Kaepernick's party but I doubt anyone has actually asked him for it to even be on record and given that Trump would ask for his own mother to be fired if it gained him political points.
Nothing but stupid, grandstanding bullshit here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday June 04 2018, @12:02AM (6 children)
I just love it when TMB stands up for freedom of speech, even speech he doesn't agree with, from black folk! It smells, well, it smells like cognitive dissonance1
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04 2018, @12:13AM (5 children)
I'm standing up for not reinterpreting the law to suit yourself at the moment, ari.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:18AM (2 children)
Oh, do go to sleep, TMB, the fishing must have been overtaxing for you this weekend.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)
Yeah, I know it's inconvenient when someone blows your narrative all to shit. I had a good nap out at the lake earlier though since the catfish weren't doing much biting, so I'm good.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:41AM
You never were before, I find it hard to believe it now.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday June 04 2018, @04:54AM (1 child)
Hmm, can you do that with the Fourteenth Amendment, or is that beyond the limit of your digital (as in fingers) calculation? You are wrong, oh Micturating Buzzouard! Have the decency to admit it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:42PM
Occasionally I am forced to agree with TMB. DAMN YOU ARI!!!
So unless Trump offered to make/withhold/influence official policy then that section has no bearing on this topic.
and as for the 14th amendment:
Section 1 was all that seemed even possibly applicable to this topic, but I'm not seeing how it actually does apply. Care to elaborate on why TMB is wrong? I would so love it if Trump broke the law with his continued shtty behavior!!! If Obama had made recommendations to fire people over a variety of topics such as abortion, gender identity, etc. you conservatives / libertarians would be howling for blood.
So, even if you are correct TMB you're still a piece of hypocritical crap along with the other douchebags around here that suddenly change their tune when a liberal or brown person is the subject of persecution.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 04 2018, @12:32AM (2 children)
That's what "the preponderance of evidence" means and is why OJ lost the wrongful death lawsuit despite having been found not guilty in his criminal trial.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04 2018, @12:37AM (1 child)
Which is all fine and good but I don't think they can prove one percent in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, much less fifty more.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 04 2018, @04:10AM
My comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. I'll try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 04 2018, @12:46AM (2 children)
How does this "political affiliation" work? Does it need to be, I don't know, be shown that the "politically affiliated person" holds some "formal certificate of affiliation"?
Or is it enough that the "politically affiliated" to display signs of adherence to a set of values that are defined as political at the moment?
Which of the two?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04 2018, @12:54AM (1 child)
Either would still fail, so I don't think it particularly matters. All their "gotcha" evidence is of the variety showing that Trump cares because it can be used to advance Trump's career. That hurts Kaepernick's case rather than helping it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 04 2018, @03:01AM
Apologies, I should have it specified explicitly: the context of the more general, outside the particular case of "Kaepernick vs Trump".
It's rather in "does it matter if a political expression is affiliated with a party or not in the context of freedom of expression (with all the freedom's consequences, such as not being afraid of any kind of consequences from the govt or any member of it)?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:49PM
While I posted a reply to Aristarchus about you apparently being right about section 227 and possibly the 14th amendment, Trump's statements still qualify as a violation of Freedom of Speech. Taking a knee during the anthem has no effect upon the team or the game except for a bunch of snowflake morons being offended. I find it infinitely amusing and surprisingly NOT shocking that you would reverse your principles over this topic.
Disingenuous shitbird as usual!