Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday June 11 2020, @01:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the A-See-Change dept.

Many sources are reporting what we can read at ABC News,

NASCAR banned the Confederate flag from its races and properties on Wednesday, formally distancing itself from what for many is a symbol of slavery and racism that had been a familiar sight at stock car events for more than 70 years.

The move comes amid social unrest around the globe following the death in police custody of George Floyd, an unarmed black man in Minneapolis. Protests have roiled the nation for days and Confederate monuments are being taken down across the South — the tradtiional fan base for NASCAR.

[...] The issue was pushed to the fore this week as Bubba Wallace, NASCAR's lone black driver, called for the banishment of the Confederate flag and said there was "no place" for them in the sport. At long last, NASCAR obliged.

"The presence of the confederate flag at NASCAR events runs contrary to our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all fans, our competitors and our industry," NASCAR said. "Bringing people together around a love for racing and the community that it creates is what makes our fans and sport special. The display of the confederate flag will be prohibited from all NASCAR events and properties."

[...] The move was announced before Wednesday night's race at Martinsville Speedway where Wallace, an Alabama native, was driving a Chevrolet with a #BlackLivesMatter paint scheme. Wallace got a shoutout on Twitter from several athletes, including NBA star LeBron James, for using the paint scheme in the race.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:11PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:11PM (#1006427)
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:32PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:32PM (#1006441)

    Really? I am lying about "peaceful protestors" not going home before dark? I am lying about them breaking the curfews that were established to prevent riots after they had been reliably breaking out? Having daytime protests that ended before dark would have easily prevented so much rioting. Peaceful protestors didn't care.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:51PM (#1006447)

      Really? I am lying about "peaceful protestors" not going home before dark? I am lying about them breaking the curfews that were established to prevent riots after they had been reliably breaking out? Having daytime protests that ended before dark would have easily prevented so much rioting. Peaceful protestors didn't care.

      Yes. You're being quite disingenuous.

      As the First Amendment [congress.gov] states:

      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.

      And the Fourteenth Amendment (among other things) states:

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      So. Congress (and by extension of the 14th Amendment) and the states may make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Imposing a law (or executive action in the case of the curfew) that abridges the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances is explicitly unconstitutional and illegal on its face.

      The lie on your part in that case is that local governments can legally infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans.

      Despite your authoritarian ramblings, most of us understand that. Don't like the Constitution? Change it. Or leave.

      Using police violence/authority to enforce unconstitutional orders is wrong as well as illegal.

      Peaceful protestors don't have to *schedule* the use of their Constitutional rights, no matter what authoritarian bootlickers like you might think.

      But you go ahead and continue to espouse authoritarian and explicitly unconstitutional ideas and support anti-freedom and anti-liberty positions. You have the right to free speech -- which is a lot more than you'd allow others to have. Funny that.