Sports
See other Sports Articles
Title: Jaguars, Ravens players kneel [overseas] during anthem amid Trump's criticism
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief ... l-during-anthem-in-response-to
Published: Sep 24, 2017
Author: Brandon Carter
Post Date: 2017-09-24 12:43:38 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 22779
Comments: 124
Multiple Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars players knelt on Sunday during the playing of the national anthem at the first NFL game since President Trump called for players who take a knee to be fired. Video and photos posted to Twitter shows players kneeling and locking arms as the anthem played. Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan joined his players on the field and linked arms with them before the game began. Trump has faced backlash in recent days from after calling on NFL owners to fire players who kneel during the national anthem. "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b---- off the field right now,'" Trump said at a rally in Alabama on Friday. "'He is fired.'" Trump’s comments brought rebukes against Trump from multiple NFL players, the head of the NFL players’ union and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who called Trump’s comments “divisive” and said they showed a “lack of respect for the NFL.” Several NFL executives have also spoken out against Trump and reaffirmed their players’ rights to peacefully protest. But Trump on Sunday doubled down on his comments, calling for players to be fired or suspended for not standing during the national anthem and hitting the NFL for not telling players to stand. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017 Poster Comment: Notice that "Shad Khan" (what a cute nickname), the Jaguars owner is a Paki immigrant and Sunni Muslim who joined his team in publicly disrespecting our country. Notice that they traveled overseas to disrespect our flag and anthem. But both teams stood for the British anthem! Another NFL story about kneeling: Ravens and Jaguars players kneeling during National Anthem in England pic.twitter.com/GhthyfIEe3— Justin Fenton (@justin_fenton) September 24, 2017 Many players from both teams kneeling during anthem in London, arms linked.— Neil Best (@sportswatch) September 24, 2017 Multiple players on both the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took a knee during the national anthem in the first NFL game today pic.twitter.com/lSz7IcwhBm— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 24, 2017 
A multitude of #Ravens and #Jaguars players kneeling during the National Anthem this morning, the rest of the team locking arms in unison pic.twitter.com/c97tPS9PxC— Ashlyn Sullivan (@ashlynrsullivan) September 24, 2017 
Jaguars’ owner Shad Khan: pic.twitter.com/aMO8cHDWYb— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) September 24, 2017 
If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend! ...NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S.
I did my best to get those Twitter pics to show here.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 117.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Trump should just ignore the matter completely. It's purely a private NFL matter.
Actually, it has already spread to major league baseball, and internationally, and the actions are not happening in private. What it is not, is a matter of constitutionally protected free speech. The First Amendment protects against governmental interference with free speech. If the players can disrespect the flag, the national anthem, or the country on the field, in uniform, while they represent the team and the league, it is because they are being permitted to do so by the NFL and their team.
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it. My meaning with "private" was that the government has no say or grounds for complaint in the matter, and that it was solely in the purview of the NFL to deal with however they see fit. True, as stadiums qualify as public venues and the events are widely broadcast it is not private it that sense. As it is not a federal matter, Trump should declare it as such, and his condemnation of the protest should be billed as his personal opinion, though underscoring that is not Trump's way. From another angle, Trump's condemnation of the protests have actually served to reward the protesters with the very attention they want. That may have actually fanned the flames, so to speak, and encouraged other athletes to protest as well. Pro athletes may well have modest loyalty to country, but likely a stronger loyalty to their teammates, and compatriots in other pro sports.
What on earth does it have to do with Federal criminal law???? There is no CRIMINAL violation here by any party. The President has every right to stand up and speak up. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-4/chapter-1/sec.-9/ §9. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Citizens of other countries present should stand at attention. All such conduct toward the flag in a moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes. (Added Pub. L. 105–225, §2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1498; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title V, §594, Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 138.) The government does have a say when, on national television, a corporate entity is permitting or encouraging the planned, deliberate, organized violation of a Federal statute, to the offense of the people, and in disrespect of the flag and the country. When, with league approval, the players and coaches disrespect the flag and the country, it is offensive. Screw stadiums. It is on FCC regulated BROADCAST television. It is a Federal matter. 4 U.S.C. § 9. It is the nation, the national flag, and the national anthem that is being disrespected. Opinions do vary. Trump has definitely shined the brightest light possible upon the kneeling cockroaches. He has presented the people with a simple choice between Team BLM, supported by Team Goodell and the NFL football monopoly, and Team USA. This cost of the NFL caving to Team BLM will have the same devasting cost as it did to the University of Missouri. Attendance goes down, tv ratings go down, and revenue goes down. When it goes down enough, the owners will no longer support the players costing them a fortune. As for owners joining with Team BLM yesterday, these are the same owners who will not hire Colin Kaepernick. They are in their current predicament because the NFL failed to act last year when Kaepernick insulted the nation every week. Pro athletes may well have modest loyalty to country, but likely a stronger loyalty to their teammates, and compatriots in other pro sports. It is not all pro athletes. There are thugs and jackasses in the NFL, just as there are outside the NFL, who support BLM bullshit agitation. The NFL can do something about their thug BLM infection, or they can pay the same price as the University of Missouri. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/university-missouri-enrollment-hits-new-low/ By Bradford Richardson - The Washington Times Enrollment at the University of Missouri continues to crater in the wake of the November 2015 race protests, with this year’s incoming class down 33 percent from the one two years ago. [...]
I ask rhetorically: are you suggesting the First Amendment only prohibits civil action on the part of the federal government against people who's speech it doesn't like? I don't know if the fed gov has ever had any basis for a civil claim related to speech, but certainly the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing any criminal penalty for speech/expression. Ergo, my statement above. Exactly, as any such alleged violation would violate the First Amendment. Yes, of course. I should have qualified it as any "criminal or civil" complaint. All government workers are free to express their own objections (with the possible exception of judges who may be ethically bound from doing so). As for 4 U.S.C. § 9, a key word in the statute is "should". Does "should" in this context mean "must" or perhaps it's more suggestive & non-binding in nature, as per it's common meaning in daily usage? I would expect any enforcement based on it meaning "must" would fail Constitutional scrutiny (not counting the "should" as directed to military personnel, which is likely very mandatory and enforceable). I mean, if the USSC said flag burning was protected expression, then I'd expect this to fall by the wayside. With respect to corporate entities, I wouldn't disagree with that. But there's little doubt the NFL would like nothing more than for their players to stop the damn protesting because it is hitting them in the pocketbook. The NFL, as a corporation, has absolutely nothing to gain from this mess, statute or no statute. Clearly the NFL is not organizing or planning or encouraging this in any way.
What on earth does it have to do with Federal criminal law???? I ask rhetorically: are you suggesting the First Amendment only prohibits civil action on the part of the federal government against people who's speech it doesn't like? I don't know if the fed gov has ever had any basis for a civil claim related to speech, but certainly the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing any criminal penalty for speech/expression. Ergo, my statement above. The First Amendment explicitly states what it prohibits, "Congress shall make no law...." This is not a case of government interference with the protected free speech of anybody. No unconstitutional law is being proposed or enforced. The player conduct is not constitutionally protected from anything. It is not protected free speech. Your claim that the players conduct is constitutionally protected is just wrong. They are employees in the workplace. Exactly, as any such alleged violation would violate the First Amendment. No, the First Amendment freedom of expression does not apply to employee behavior in the workplace. Is stripping naked and dancing a form of constitutionally protected expression? The correct answer is "yes." If you are an employee at WalMart (and not a nude bar), and you take it all off and dance in the aisle, you get arrested and charged criminally. You do not enjoy some constitutional protection such that you can tell WalMart that you are going to work in the nude in their workplace. Even if you were the only person working in a room with no windows, they could prohibit your nudity. Yes, of course. I should have qualified it as any "criminal or civil" complaint. All government workers are free to express their own objections (with the possible exception of judges who may be ethically bound from doing so). This is not a criminal case. It is a PR case. Government workers can express the objections in such manner as the employer dictates. Government workers cannot hold protests on the workroom floor. During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and ... Does "should" in this context mean "must" or perhaps it's more suggestive & non-binding in nature, as per it's common meaning in daily usage? I would expect any enforcement based on it meaning "must" would fail Constitutional scrutiny (not counting the "should" as directed to military personnel, which is likely very mandatory and enforceable). I mean, if the USSC said flag burning was protected expression, then I'd expect this to fall by the wayside. 4 U.S.C. § 9 defines what people should do. It is not a criminal statute. There is no criminal or civil penalty for noncompliance. You can burn a flag and that is protected from government intrusion. As an employee in the workplace, you must comply with the employer's code of conduct or face consequences from the employer. While you enjoy the freedom of expression to burn the flag as a political statement, if you walk into WalMart and burn a flag, you get arrested. If you are a WalMart employee on the job at WalMart and burn a flag on the floor as a protest of whatever, you get arrested. You enjoy the freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" Do it in a crowded theater and get arrested. No element of the government has enjoined the NFL players or owners from kneeling or acting like fools. 4 U.S.C. § 9 says it shouldn't be done. President Trump told the owners they shouldn't permit it in their workplace. He hurt their feelings and publicly shamed them for the boorish behavior. He did not threaten a criminal or civil action. He used the bully pulpit to engage in public relations. If they would rather not have the President proclaim their misbehavior to the American people, they can just behave. It is the NFL's choice. The American people may choose to influence the choice the NFL makes. They do not have to pay to be insulted by a classless organization. The statute only clarifies the PR problem. Here is another statute which covers the national anthem. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301 (a) Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem. (b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem— (1) when the flag is displayed— (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed. (Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title V, § 595, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4475.) It says nothing about locking arms in a show of unity of ... unity of what? Really. Here is Jerry Jones, kneeling and grinning for the camera. Boo inducing behavior organized or condoned by management is not a good business idea.
There are no replies to Comment # 117. End Trace Mode for Comment # 117.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#36. To: Pinguinite, Tooconservative (#12)
It's purely a private NFL matter.
#68. To: nolu chan (#36)
What it is not, is a matter of constitutionally protected free speech. The First Amendment protects against governmental interference with free speech.
#88. To: Pinguinite (#68)
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it.
My meaning with "private" was that the government has no say or grounds for complaint in the matter, and that it was solely in the purview of the NFL to deal with however they see fit.
4 U.S.C. § 9 (2015)
True, as stadiums qualify as public venues and the events are widely broadcast it is not private it that sense.
As it is not a federal matter, Trump should declare it as such, and his condemnation of the protest should be billed as his personal opinion, though underscoring that is not Trump's way.
From another angle, Trump's condemnation of the protests have actually served to reward the protesters with the very attention they want. That may have actually fanned the flames, so to speak, and encouraged other athletes to protest as well.
University of Missouri enrollment hits new low
Monday, September 25, 2017
#114. To: nolu chan (#88)
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it.
What on earth does it have to do with Federal criminal law????
There is no CRIMINAL violation here by any party.
My meaning with "private" was that the government has no say or grounds for complaint in the matter, and that it was solely in the purview of the NFL to deal with however they see fit.
The President has every right to stand up and speak up.
During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and ...
The government does have a say when, on national television, a corporate entity is permitting or encouraging the planned, deliberate, organized violation of a Federal statute, to the offense of the people, and in disrespect of the flag and the country.
#117. To: Pinguinite (#114)
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it.
There is no CRIMINAL violation here by any party.
The President has every right to stand up and speak up.
As for 4 U.S.C. § 9, a key word in the statute is "should".
But there's little doubt the NFL would like nothing more than for their players to stop the damn protesting because it is hitting them in the pocketbook. The NFL, as a corporation, has absolutely nothing to gain from this mess, statute or no statute.
36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem
Clearly the NFL is not organizing or planning or encouraging this in any way.
Replies to Comment # 117.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]