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, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:11PM (43 children)
Now, instead of nerdy stuff, we get hateful anti-American socialist nonsense. It's not even reasonable!
First, "wrongfully" is nonsense. Americans -- all of them, not just Trump -- have a duty to oppose unpatriotic shit. He's in the right.
Second... what do you mean by "partisan political affiliation" here? Are you claiming that black people are owned by the democratic party? Are you claiming that a platform position of the democratic party is to disrespect the country or to stop policing our country?
Third, it sure seems that the NFL could have just imposed fines on the players. There is no need to fire anybody. Heck, the best answer might be to hire Kaepernick with an agreement that he stand perfectly at attention with his helmet held at his side, with perfect posture and everything. The agreement could include fines that are a whole season's worth of pay for serious failure, and a game's worth for minor slouching.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:18PM (20 children)
> First, "wrongfully" is nonsense. Americans -- all of them, not just Trump -- have a duty to oppose unpatriotic shit. He's in the right.
Bullshit. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution. Try reading it once, it's quite a fine document.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:55PM (1 child)
Couldn't find anything in there about not being allowed to have and express an opinion.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:43AM
Whoosh...
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday June 04 2018, @05:38PM (17 children)
Thank you!
Yes. Do read the constitution. Note that amendments to the constitution are incorporated into that document:
The First Amendment:
Mr. Bierce, in his lexicographic tour de force [wikipedia.org] noted:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:45PM (16 children)
He didn't make a law he gave his opinion.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 04 2018, @06:02PM (15 children)
What are you blathering on about?
A public official made statements that run counter to the highest law of the land, in the name of "patriotism."
Calling him out on that is not just our right, it's the duty of all freedom-loving people.
Don't shut up, as you're free to blather on to your heart's content. Just as I'm free to call out your idiocy.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:39PM (10 children)
Right just like your opinion ( classless and crude as it was) was not a law he did not make a law. He gave his opinion on the disrespect of our country. Q
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @07:06PM (9 children)
Except his opinion is an attempt by a government official to limit the 1st amendment rights of a citizen specifically by having their employment terminated, and the comments were made at a political rally. It wasn't just an opinion, it was a direct call for action.
You trump apologists are going to need some serious therapy once this house of cards falls down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:47PM (8 children)
Nobody had their employment terminated. Kapernick made the dumb choice to exercise free agency. He exercised himself out of a nice job.
And then his idiot girlfriend screwed his chances of being picked up.
Football is a business. When your employees begin to affect the bottom line and offend your customers, you find new employees. For some reason, the lefty loonies seem to think that employees are unrestricted in their first amendment rights while on the clock when it suits them. The same ones seem to praise shit like James Damore getting fired by Google. Funny that they are too damn stupid to see the irony...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @09:11PM (7 children)
Ah yes, the stupid conservative who thinks that privatizing everything is great and that Constitutional rights are somehow limited by employment. They are free to fire him if they can legally do so, but that doesn't make Trump's involvement any less illegal.
Suck it up buttercup, your spine needs some hardening. Also, might want to do some squats to try and firm up your butthole after the decades of rape you've been so "happy" to receive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @09:44PM (3 children)
If he's a buttercup you're sour cream for sure. You can't just impeach someone because you don't like him and what he does... We are a nation of laws. I yearn for the day when the REEEEEEing stops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @11:47PM (2 children)
Sure I jumped the shark with "but that doesn't make Trump's involvement any less illegal" but you imagining that I'm calling for impeachment just because I don't like him makes you the moron going REEEEEEEE. Irony is a bitch, guess that's why you get along with it so well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:34AM (1 child)
Nevermind, you're a salty salty pretzel
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @04:13PM
Ah yes, the superior intellectual who dispassionately stands back and points fingers while offering nothing of substance. Communication is often hard around sensitive issues, misunderstandings are very common, but it is sure a hell of a lot better than ignoring everything and hoping humanity suddenly morphs into perfectly reasonable people. Best of luck with your useless approach to criticism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @12:02AM (2 children)
Ah yes. The simple minded entitled millennial. If you think your first amendment rights aren't limited by employment, try going to work and calling your boss a fucking fascist asshole. I'll be you'll still be claiming he's violating your rights as he throws you out the door.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:16PM (1 child)
Not what I said, keep practicing that reading comprehension.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @06:27PM
Read what I quoted from you. Yes it is exactly what you said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:01AM (3 children)
Let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump should have no right to free speech because you disagree with him saying NFL players should have no right to free speech.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 05 2018, @04:53AM (2 children)
Hmmm...Where exactly did I say "Trump should have no right to free speech"?
I said he should be called out for saying others shouldn't have free speech rights. Are you not fluent in English, or are you trying to twist my words to support your point of view, or are you just not so bright? Perhaps all three?
Given that L'Orange took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States," it's interesting that he makes statements that run counter to that document.
As such, those who love freedom and wish to preserve it, should take Trump to task by using the freedom of speech that jackass spat on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:40PM
I'm not the Constitutional scholar like you are. Can you show me where the President exercising his right to free speech with his personal opinions is "counter to that document" excluding the fact you just don't like what he has to say?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @06:54PM
I can always count on a left leaning nutcase to respond to a honest conversation by trying to shut down the other party. While you espouse and defend the freedom of speech of those that conservatives find offensive, you mod me troll when I ask you to back up your Trump assertions with proof. You behave exactly the same way as the object of your irrational hatred and are too dense to see it.
You seem to love freedom of speech only when it agrees with you. Your original statement:
is objectively wrong. It violated no principle of the Constitution. You just don't approve of the content. It is no more "counter to the highest law of the land" than me claiming NotSanguine should be deported to Guantanamo Bay. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but emotions are not facts.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Captival on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:30PM (1 child)
Nobody fired Kaepernick. Ever. He was offered a contract and turned it down. He had a shit year and was offered less than what he wanted. The same thing happens to countless players. Notice how he wasn't a Justice Warrior his entire career until he knew the end was near.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:08AM
Link?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:56PM (4 children)
A few Q's,
What's patriotic about being forced to stand far a national anthem?
What's patriotic about being forced to stand for a national anthem at arbitrary sporting events?
When did kneeling become less respectful than standing?, I man really when, ever, in history?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Monday June 04 2018, @03:56AM (3 children)
Standing for something denotes your reverence to that topic. Hence, the stand to attention in the military, religious practise schools etc.
Clearly the sports association behind that sport wants their sport to be synonymous with being a patriotic sport. One that is played by patriots. Or watched by patriots. Or something patriotic really. Also it might be worth reading the history of how it was played [washingtonpost.com] at sporting events.
When it standing for the anthem became more of a commercial affair, in wanting the "'Murica!" associated with a commercial product much more than actually respecting what it stood for. It's great to be totally 100% patriotic and do all the sporting anthem stuff as long as it is generating money and making everyone feel good. When someone starts to use that meaning for another reason, better get out of the way of their lawyers. Even more so when it is actually a divisive topic which people feel strongly about. Unhappy patrons don't buy tickets and/or booze. And they stop watching. That's when kneeling became less respectful. Right then in history is when it did.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday June 04 2018, @04:24AM (1 child)
so, you're saying it unpatriotic to do soemthing that hurts (or might hurt) profits?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by tfried on Monday June 04 2018, @09:29AM
I believe what GP was trying to say is that it's silly to even think about this in terms of "patriotic" or "unpatriotic". Whichever side you take, you're falling for a marketing trick.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 04 2018, @09:43AM
It would be hilarious if it wouldn't be crass ignorance.
You stand for attention because the superior rank ordered you to... a thing that happens in the army quite a lot.
In enough cases, reverence in religious practice is shown by kneeling or even bowing while kneeled.
Taking the oath while kneeled during coronation [wikipedia.org] doesn't seem like lack of reverence to me.
That's not reverence, that's brain bleaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:53AM (12 children)
Worshiping symbols does not make you a patriot; it makes you a jingoist. People like Snowden are the real patriots, since they issues facing their country and try to improve it.
Kneeling during an anthem harms no one and does nothing. The only reason it's talked about so often is that the US is filled with fake patriot snowflakes.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @04:49AM (5 children)
No one is physically harmed, true. Unless they have bad knees.
What it does do, though, when performed on TV before a sporting events by the athletes, is piss off the paying customers. It doesn't matter if you or the team owners or the athletes think the paying customers are stupid for getting pissed off -- they're still pissed off. Pissed off customers stop being customers, and the team takes in less money.
This is about employees acting in a manner that directly results in less income to the employer. The employer is well within it's rights to order the employees to stop doing that while on the job. If the athletes wanted to do that outside the stadium after the game, the employer would have no right to restrict them from that behavior.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:22AM (3 children)
But that's the issue. Why does it offend them? If these were blue-haired college kids getting offended by something ridiculous, many people who are on the right would be mocking them for being oversensitive snowflakes. Yet, here, we see that the people offended by people kneeling during the anthem aren't getting similarly mocked by most of those same people. There is some serious hypocrisy at work here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:58PM (2 children)
The same reason that your "blue-haired college kids" get offended by MAGA hats. Because they see it as disrespectful to their core beliefs. It doesn't really matter why anyway. The facts that matter is that a large part of the core customer base of the product they sell finds it offensive. Team owners have run the numbers and believe that their business will be financially better catering to the ones who find it offensive instead of the ones who do not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @12:00AM (1 child)
And if the blue haired college kids started demanding that every MAGA hat wearing freak be fired or put in a prison camp, well then you'd have my support. For now the idiots getting all offended by people taking a knee are in the wrong. They should protest by holding up signs and boycotting the NFL. You being OK with this "its a business" excuse just makes me think that every protesting hippy should be allowed to destroy industrial equipment and trespass to prevent environmental pollution. You sure you wanna go down the anarchy path?
It is one thing for an employer to pass whatever rules they'd like, and obviously the NFL is trying to placate their moronic base, but it is something else entirely for the POTUS or congress critter to call for firing someone because they are offended. If you can't wrap your brain around this simple idea then you should emigrate to the Middle East and join those nutjobs.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:16AM
Awwwww.... Did someone get triggered?
Nobody demanded anyone be sent to prison camp. You're just fucking nuts. And if you think your "blue haired college kids" aren't demanding people be fired for less than that, you haven't been paying attention. Apparently Evergreen State College is demanding a prof be fired for showing up to work on a day they declared to be free of whiteness. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/09/18/evergreen-professor-receives-500000-settlement [insidehighered.com]
You are completely crazy. How can any sane human being equate asking an employee to stand for a three minute portion of his workday with promoting the extrajudicial destruction of privately owned property by people as equally nutty as you? This is why sane people do not take you retarded "progressives" seriously. Until you learn to take your meds on a regular basis, you are going to have to be happy howling at the moon and hiding in your safe spaces.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 04 2018, @06:46AM
So what you're saying is that when big customer hits on the executive assistant, she'd damned well better put out? If she says no, he may not want to order as much.
Is standing for the Anthem in their job description?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:06PM
i agree with the whole fake patriot stuff. the whole country is full of idiotic slaves that fund the seditious scum at the irs and all the enemy agencies that shouldn't even exist. they pay property tax willingly like dumb fucks who can never own their own home/property. they let the government send volunteer soldiers to die in countries that didn't attack or threaten to attack us, etc. they cheer as monstrous pigs steal, kidnap and kill for unconstitutional(illegal) laws. they stupidly attack the small percent of people who actually bother to educate themselves and uphold their duty to the true purpose of this country. the list of seditious shit these people support is staggering in it's volume.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:36PM (4 children)
Yeah, I think I saw a thing about the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism:
Nationalism is having everyone salute your flag.
Patriotism is having a nation who's flag everyone wants to salute.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @06:45PM (1 child)
Patriotism is overlooking the flaws in your country in order to claim that it's the best country.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:20PM
PatriotismNationalism* is overlooking the flaws in your country in order to claim that it's the best country.Let me just fix that for you
*Nationalism practitioners often refer to Nationalism as Patriotism. Not surprisingly, being well educated is not a requirement, and is often an impediment, towards practicing Nationalism.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:24PM (1 child)
To add another quote and paraphrase Seneca,
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:11AM
Alas, poor Seneca! And all we have here on Soylentnews is Sulla!
(Score: -1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 04 2018, @01:03AM
Think Progress is VERY BIASED. But, I think there really is a lawsuit. A dumb lawsuit, in my opinion. And basically that's what this story is. Someone filed a dumb lawsuit that they'll probably lose. It's news, right? And you can read about it on Breitbart News (that one is much better without Sloppy Steve). I think maybe you're mixing up what the lawsuit says with what Think Progress believes, what Original Owner believes, what the Editor & SoylentNews believe. Which is easy to do because it's a very biased story, they want you to take the side of the plaintiffs.
They're claiming in the suit that we're being partisan. But they'll have to prove it. Trust me, they won't prove it. And unfortunately a lot of folks don't know what that means. Ask your lawyers, people!!! breitbart.com/sports/2018/05/31/kaepernick-lawyer-mark-geragos-nfl-owners-colluded-because-of-trump [breitbart.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @06:42PM
Well we know what political camp you're hard into. I would argue that exercising one's freedom of speech is in itself patriotic, as we're making use of the rights our patriotic forefathers fought and died for. Patriotism!
Whenever somebody gives patriotism as their reason for doing anything, I hear "I don't have any actual logical reason to support this." About as decisive a reason as, "because God says so."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"