Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday June 03 2018, @10:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the naughty-naughty dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 04 2018, @04:08AM (6 children)

    "... unjust laws."
    -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Monday June 04 2018, @05:05AM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04 2018, @05:05AM (#688232) Journal

    Actually, MLKjr., in his erudition, was quoting St. Augustine [wikipedia.org], who said:

    Lex iniusta non est lex.

    For those of you who are Germanic of otherwise white and illiterate, the Latin translates as "An unjust law is not a law".

    Now what will really cook the ammosexuals noodles is that the divine Augustine was referring to laws that allow self-defense. If you defend yourself, you value your life over your attacker, and that is not very Christian of you. Suck on that, Islamophobes.

    • (Score: 2) by VanessaE on Monday June 04 2018, @07:48AM (4 children)

      by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Monday June 04 2018, @07:48AM (#688272) Journal

      "If you defend yourself, you value your life over your attacker, and that is not very Christian of you."

      Except that you forget something: Christianity is derived from Judaism, and one of the most important rules there is "Therefore, choose life." (as it is usually summarized). You're expected to do your best to preserve both your own life and those around you, including an attacker if it's safe and practical to do so, but to defend yourself with lethal force is acceptable if there's no safe way to apply non-lethal force and no chance of getting the attacker to back down; shoot/stab the attacker in the arm or leg to stop them, if you can. Put one in their chest if you have to. That also means to contact the proper authorities, call 9-1-1/9-9-9/whatever, that sort of thing, if you can do so without jeopardizing lives (it also extends to life-saving actions such as calling an ambulance or performing CPR).

      I'm pretty sure that Christians have something similar in their dogma. It's just that they make up a huge portion of the gun nuts, who just seem to love to make every potential altercation an excuse to wield lethal force (rifle slung across the back while grocery shopping, anyone?), when they could just leave their firearms at home and *gasp* rely on a Taser and their phone. Of course even if they do so, so many are just plain trigger-happy regardless of the weapon.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 04 2018, @08:38AM (3 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04 2018, @08:38AM (#688288) Journal

        Except that you forget something: Christianity is derived from Judaism, and one of the most important rules there is "Therefore, choose life." (as it is usually summarized).

        No, I never forget anything. Or at least rarely. 2400 years of repetition makes that difficult. So the proper principle is "choose innocent life", for the Christians, anyway. But that is the point, if you prefer your own life over that of another, you are guilty of the sin of self-love, avarice, so your life is no longer innocent. Tough standard, eh? Only Buddhists and Muslims go as far!

        I'm pretty sure that Christians have something similar in their dogma. It's just that they make up a huge portion of the gun nuts, who just seem to love to make every potential altercation an excuse to wield lethal force (rifle slung across the back while grocery shopping, anyone?),

        So, you are not Christian? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does cause you to mistake all these ammosexuals who worship Dios de Muerta, the god of Death, for Christians. They not only do they love their selves too much, but they wish for opportunities to do back-flips and shoot people without even meaning to. So let's get this straight, a law that allows lethal force in self-defense in no law at all. This is where Christians like Augustine depart from Cicero and his "inter arma leges silent" [wikipedia.org]. Milo set that rumble up, on purpose.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @10:46AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @10:46AM (#688308)

          ...without even meaning to

          That was a pretty funny story [soylentnews.org]--if you'll allow me a moment of twisted mirth.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:06AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:06AM (#688686) Journal

            Sorry, it is Santa Muertos, a mere saint and not a god, although it may be a covert Aztec god.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VanessaE on Tuesday June 05 2018, @10:08AM

          by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 05 2018, @10:08AM (#688789) Journal

          So, you are not Christian?

          Nope, Jewish. That said, it's no mistake. There's a huge overlap between Christians (and general fundies), and gun nuts - at least in my experience. I don't care to try to explain it, as it baffles me completely.

          As for sins? Bleh. I don't ascribe to the concept; fuck-ups can be righted, usually.