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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:48AM (3 children)
The owners could just as easily have said that they are going to stop with the anthem nonsense.
If the crowd expects a pre-game song, they could have chosen a different song.
I suggest This land is your land, This land is my land. [woodyguthrie.org]
I'd especially like them to sing the whole thing, in particular the part that says
I'd like to see them try that sing-it-all thing with The Star Spangled Banner.
Did you know that Francis Scott Key was a slaveholder?
Did you know that Key's poem is a racist celebration of slavery? [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [theintercept.com]
Just as the Union Army took Black enlistees seeking to fight against the pro-slavery side 1861 - 1865, the British Army in The War of 1812 accepted slaves whom they had freed and allowed them to be trained as combatants to fought against the pro-slavery side (USA).
That lot was the "slave" which Key was calling out for special brutality.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:25AM (2 children)
All we need is rainbows and unicorns. Tell you what chief, when you save up your pennies and buy a NFL team, feel free to sing "Somewhere over the Rainbow" for all I care. Until then, tough shit if you don't like their rules. The rest of your post was just irrelevant gibberish meant to make a lefty feel good about virtue signalling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @03:03AM (1 child)
I have no interest in professional sports.
I've previously mentioned the heinous plantation model in use there.
I've also mentioned billionaire team owners wanting a stadium built for them at city taxpayers expense.
Round up the lot of them and load them on the B-Ark.
In particular, I hate football of all stripes.
It's a brutal sport[1], ranking down there with boxing and that other beat-the-hell-out-of-a-dude savagery that has somehow come to be called a "sport".
[1] Ever hear George Carlin's comparison of baseball and football?
Now, being a Socialist, the ownership model that does strike me as not being completely horrible, is Green Bay's thing.
(From what I hear, in many ways[2], Wisconsin rocks.)
[2] Milwaukee has had several Socialists elected to city government.
Madison has a bunch of cooperatives.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:17PM
That's your interpretation of the model. I would argue it is a military model. Players are drafted prior to the playing season and trained intensively to work as a team. Players are traded (transferred/PCS) to other units which fit their talents during the duration of their contract/enlistment, although free agency somewhat mitigates that. And finally players are PAID for their efforts.
And if taxpayers are stupid enough to bite, it's somehow the owners at fault? You see taxpayers sometimes have different desires than socialist outcasts and misfits. Sometimes, they want a professional football team near them. Sometimes business owners want the income that flows from a nearby team. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean that the other taxpayers can't.
I'm not surprised. I don't much care for professional sports either, except hockey and F1 auto racing. From your apparent hatred though, I'd say you took a few too many swirlies in the locker room at high school.
Milwaukee: home to Jeffrey Dahmer. If you needed to give Wisconsin an enema, Milwaukee is where you'd have to shove the tube.