Shot in the Dark

Big Words

A friend of the blog writes:

Citizen Trump can criticize NFL players all he wants. But, I am a little upset that he is using his Presidential podium to suggest speech is a reason to be fired. (Leave that to the private employers and private customers to decide). But, as this is Trump, I am sure the issue is not the NFL. It seems there is the most hype when something else is going on. Our “wonderful” media, however, chooses to focus on hype rather than news, and Trump understands this more than most.

Then, I read this in the MinnPost.

And, it reminded me that this writer is on to something. When the government begins to threaten our Constitutional rights, it is important to stand up for those rights, no matter how out of place one feels. There may be public harassment, but that’s part of standing up for your rights. Gun owners have been doing it for years at open carry events.

Trump is playing to his audience – and it’s not a good thing in this case.

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

23 responses to “Big Words”

  1. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Geez Mitch, this friend of yours must be a flaming lib.

    But, I am a little upset that he is using his Presidential podium to suggest speech is a reason to be fired. (Leave that to the private employers and private customers to decide).

    Really? REALLY? There are no examples of people being fired for non-pc speech in the goobernment and private sector? And you may want to remind your libturd friend, that NFL is a private enterprise. And that violating its rules is an offense which NFL in the past had threatened fines for, and have banned players for. Adrian Petersen ring a bell, anyone? And please remind your liberal friend that kneeling players are disobeying NFL rules and that according to the NFL rules, they could indeed be fired. And no, this is NOT a case of First Amendment because a private enterprise is involved. This is a case of pure infantile idiocy, that your liberal friend obviously subscribes to.

    So no, Mitch, in this case, as much as I deplore sTrumpet, his is right, and it is a good thing to call out the NFL and coaches and owners for being selective about enforcement of written NFL rules based on political views and affiliations.

  2. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    The Left is perfectly comfortable with private employers firing employees for speaking their minds: Brendon Eich, the Google guy, the Charlottesville protester. Heck, the Left is comfortable with Beating people for even Attempting to listen to people speak their minds: Milo, Ann, Charles Murray, Ben Shapiro.

    Trump’s NFL tweet is an example of Alinsky’s Fourth Rule: force them to live with their own rules. Do you support firing employees who speak their minds, or don’t you?

    Do we seriously expect owners to fire superb players for kneeling, thus putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage on the field? Of course not. But we can put Liberals in an embarrassing intellectual bind making them sputter and flail. Ordinary Americans can see the Left’s hypocrisy and also see who’s calling them on it. That’s always a good thing.

  3. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Oh heck. Robert Barnes explains it better than I can ever hope:

    Like the Democratic Party, the NFL has forgot who put them there. The NFL is in the entertainment business, and the heart of its fan base is Trump country. It ain’t CNN.

    First, the First Amendment protects against the government limiting speech (like public universities do routinely these days); it is not a license to use your employer to harangue their customers. On the company’s time and the customer’s dime, you have no First Amendment right to lecture your customers or fellow employees or anyone else for that matter.

    Second, the NFL rules allow broad discretion to owners to fire any player for a wide range of offensive expression, even outside the field of play. The NFL recognizes and repeats this in court filings all the time. It is on this basis the NFL restricts everything from what players can wear on the field (like threatening to fine players for commemorating 9/11) to the players’ domestic interpersonal relationships. The NFL has punished a range of expression, from the charitable (players fined for wearing breast cancer research support clothing items) to the benign (dance expressions in the end zone).

    Third, each contract a player signs includes templated language that reflects these rules. A player must “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game” (Paragraph 2). Additionally, any player whose personal conduct is “reasonably judged by the club to adversely affect or reflect on the club” can have his contract terminated immediately. (Paragraph 11). The players’ own CBA (collective bargaining agreement) reinforced this league prerogative, authorizing owners right of suspension or termination “for conduct detrimental” to “public confidence in” football. (Article 46).

    Fourth, the league specifically articulates restrictions on how players must handle the national anthem. The game-operations manual — not the rules manual — dictates how NFL games should be run, including how players must handle the anthem. The NFL’s own website threatens “penalties for noncompliance” with the game operations manual.” The manual requires that “all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.” It further requires the players “stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking” during the playing of the anthem. The manual recognized the league will “be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country” and it is thusly the duties of the owner to have this “pointed our to players and coaches.” The sanctions for non-compliance include “fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choices.”

    Trump is right: the league’s own rules require respect for the anthem and flag under which many Americans returned in caskets. The fact the NFL chose to ignore its own rules, its own contracts, and its own collective bargaining agreement is a sign it doesn’t consider disrespect for the flag to be “conduct detrimental” to the “public reputation” of the league. That’s what happens when you get your news from CNN.

  4. mjb003 Avatar
    mjb003

    Lawyers may know the answer to this- if the NFL or ESPN actually wanted to fire any of these people now, would those people have a case against their employers because of Trump? I believe the 1st Amendment protects us from the government censoring our speech, but plenty of people have been fired by their employers over speech, and those firings usually don’t have a case to be made on 1st Amendment violations. But, here is a case where Trump as President (essentially the government) is suggesting someone be fired. The NFL almost has to play this down a bit, even if it is their rules, to avoid a lawsuit, as to me it appears Trump has made this a sticky situation.

    But, yeah, I fully support the people who are condemning Trump’s constant focus on a 1st Amendment right. And I fully support those who boycott the NFL because of the players. It really isn’t that much different than my feelings on any Presidents who call for restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights whenever a shooting happens and my thoughts on people who boycott establishments that are posted “gun free zones.” We have a Bill of Rights for a reason, and we need to protect them.

  5. Penigma Avatar
    Penigma

    Mitch, on this, at least, we agree. The President should not engage in encouraging reprisal against employees for disagreeing with governmental action or policy.

    JPA and Joe – first, I don’t support firing people for simply “incorrect political speech.” That’s just a form of censorship of thought or retaliation for using what may have become archaic terminology. Given that terms change with frequency, that seems very unfair. I’d pose a counter-question to you, are you ready to say the rights of employers to fire people “at will” should be restrained? I ask because as much as you may want to demonize liberals (seems like all you want to EVER do), let’s be honest about the root of the problem. The root here is that employers feel it’s a financial risk if they don’t act to punish those who don’t ‘conform’ to political norms because other employers have lost in court for not doing so. The culprits here are the average everyday American people who’ve sided with plaintiffs who complained about being called an “Indian” vs. “Native American.” and won a jury award because of that jury’s ruling. Is it insensitive to call a Native American an Indian, yes, should someone be fired for it, no, and outside the super-idealistic college student crowd, I think you’d be pretty hard pressed to find a majority of liberals in ANY group who would say they should be fired.

    I agree the players have clauses regarding behavior, but it’s up to their employers to decide if they care enough to make it an issue. Trump, once he became President, became someone who needed to remain on the sideline (no pun) regarding that discussion because doing otherwise is creating the opportunity to have the government threatening, through the employer, the job of the person protesting. You can argue whether their protest is appropriate, but not really argue that the government should stay out of it.

    I’ll give you a different example. Let’s assume a pharmacist says “I’m not going to dispense medication (RU-486 for example) because I have a moral objection to the drug’s use.” Clearly the pharmacist has a contract (implied or written) to perform his/her duties and dispense prescribed medications. Now, let’s assume President Obama said, “Walgreens should FIRE everyone who refuses.” The President has improperly inserted himself into a dispute between the employer and the employee but more importantly, the President is using his power, the authority of his office, to squelch the protest of the pharmacist. I morally object with the pharmacist here, he’s not taking the drugs – he’s refusing to give someone a drug they are lawfully entitled to, but I do NOT want the government involved. The pharmacy has to decide, no big government solution, and no intrusion on “free speech.”

    in the end, the NFL decided the players protesting, by kneeling during the playing of the anthem, the lack of action by the government on police brutality, ESPECIALLY a lack of action, and instead hostility toward any idea of increasing police accountability, by President Trump, was something the NFL owners didn’t feel was important enough for them to punish the players. That’s the owner’s prerogative. Trump’s involvement makes it look like he’s trying to punish people who have media attention for drawing attention to something which he doesn’t find a problem and more importantly, doesn’t like it making it look like he’s not “loved” by those players. My answer to that is tough crap, grow some thicker skin. You aren’t leading the NFL and you have a duty, as President, to respect and stand up for free speech far more than you need to worry about people observing some non-official flag code.

  6. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    You have it exactly backwards — these players are honoring “the flag”. The flag is a piece of cloth. What it stands for is something precious. And the players who are taking a knee are honoring the ideals and the nation for which the flag stands. Those who denigrate the kneeling players and demand they be fired are flirting with fascism. America is not a flag or a song. it is a wonderful confluence of ideals. These players are carrying on in the best of the tradition.

  7. passout76 Avatar
    passout76

    The crux of the matter is thus: We stand and respect the flag because we have the absolute right not to.

    The man standing and the man kneeling have the equal right to do either. The man standing understands that right and its sacrificial existence much more clearly than the man kneeling.

  8. Sauk Fantoche Avatar
    Sauk Fantoche

    gosh peev being elected to office does NOT strip Trump or anyone else of their Free Speech rights.
    The NFL(via their employees) with their very big megaphone engaged in their right to Free Speech and so did Trump with his very big megaphone. The critical point you miss peev, is that Trump did NOT threaten any government action or retaliation. All he threatened is more Free Speech. Are people who say things you don’t like an existential threat to you peev?

  9. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Since Penigma called me out, I suppose I must respond. My answer is “yes.”

  10. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    You have it exactly backwards — these players are honoring “the flag”.

    Well, this proves it. Anything and everything eTASS says is a doublespeak. He can never be wrong because he is never right. Because flag is not the “flag”, you see. What a maroon.

  11. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    But, yeah, I fully support the people who are condemning Trump’s constant focus on a 1st Amendment right.

    1st amendment right is under constant assault (I think by now we can expense with the canard that NFL issue is a 1st amendment issue) by the leftist faschists in the academia and the business world. What is wrong with bringing focus to this issue? The most critical issue of our existence as free human beings?

  12. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Last month, Liberals complained Trump failed to show moral leadership when he didn’t condemn people for expressing their opinions. This month, Liberals complain Trump is showing moral leadership when he condemns people for expressing their opinions.

    The difference Liberals fail to recognize is Trump has consistently condemned people expressing their opinions in a disruptive way. He has not condemned the content of the opinions – on either side – because that’s none of his business.

    He didn’t condemn the Nazis who spent six months working with city hall to obtain permits to hold a demonstration, because the Nazis were within the law. He condemned the rioting antifa for attacking people peacefully exercising their First Amendment right to express their opinions.

    He didn’t condemn the kneeling players for protesting police brutality, he condemned them for hijacking the game to hold a political protest.

    President Trump is speaking up for law and order and decorum and that decidedly IS the President’s job. What rankles Liberals most is Americans seeing the striking contrast between a President who does his job, and his most recent predecessor who would not.
    .

  13. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    All these beautiful words of flag and country and patriotism, bring to mind the ol’ iowahawk tweet about how the left works. In this case, it’s the NFL in general, but the national anthem before NFL games specifically.
    1. Identify a respected institution.
    2. kill it.
    3. gut it.
    4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
    #lefties

    Probably should mention the tweet from Frank Fleming too:
    There are two things the left hates:
    1. Patriotism
    2. Having their patriotism questioned

  14. mjb003 Avatar
    mjb003

    JPA- Newt Gingrich once beautifully pointed out at an RNC, I think at the one in NYC that he really disliked the protesters, but loved the country that allowed them this right. That, in my mind, is bringing focus to the issue. Saying, “wouldn’t you love to see to see one of the NFL owners say you’re fired” does not bring me confidence that Trump respects the 1st Amendment any more than when Obama talks of people “clinging to religion.” It doesn’t give me any confidence that he respects the 1st amendment anymore than those in political office who tell private businesses who they have to bake a cake for. Yes, Trump has free speech, and he hasn’t outrightly threatened anyone, but he is walking a fine line in his approach. Let the fans, the advertiser dollars work it out.

    BTW- I know several have cited a rule by the NFL, but in 2016, no rule existed and I think that holds true now: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/27/nfl-players-are-encouraged-but-not-required-to-stand-for-national-anthem/

  15. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    003, there is a time and a place for protests. Your analogy is simply not valid. And, I see you chose the interpretation of the biased alphabet soup network talking points to facts. And the facts are, and I quote the quote:

    The rules, as stated on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:

    The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

    During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

    Because you are reading MSM talking points, you are missing out on facts as pointed out in the Robert Barnes article: The game-operations manual — not the rules manual — dictates how NFL games should be run, including how players must handle the anthem.

    So, I suggest you recheck your assumptions because you are working off the wrong premise and not addressing the underlying issue that NFL is a bigoted, hypocritical organization that is selectively administering rules of conduct. It has nothing to do with 1st amendment. Nobody is saying players cannot protest on their own time and dime, and sTrumpet is absolutely correct at pointing it out and suggesting players who violate NFL game operations manual which spells out consequences should indeed be fired.

  16. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Mitch, on this, at least, we agree. The President should not engage in encouraging reprisal against employees for disagreeing with governmental action or policy.

    Penny, do you have any grey matter left in that noggin of yours? What “governmental action or policy”? NFL is a private enterprise. Which part of it do you not understand? “is” or “a”?

  17. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Dang, first paragraph should have been in italics. Do not want to appear like I am plagiarizing penny. (shudder)

  18. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    Dang…

    Well, I, for one, was a bit concerned. 😉

  19. mjb003 Avatar
    mjb003

    JPA- I have indeed missed the multiple layers of rules of the NFL. Still, I don’t think we will agree on this or change each other’s mind. I will note, workplace rules are written in vague terms for a reason and the NFL rules are no different. As the rules that you posted do say, failure MAY result in discipline. The owners reserve the right to make that choice, as they do every time someone is fired. As they should be able to do. Thus, yes, Trump can opine, but as President, when he speaks, it can and will be perceived differently than when he was a citizen. His role is not to remind us of the hypocrisy of the Left. His role is to protect our national security and freedoms. If the NFL wants to allow players to kneel or protest on NFL time, that is their issue to be accountable to the advertisers and the fans. And I agree it is not a 1st Amendment issue, but it becomes one if the President Tweets several times about it, saying that the NFL should adopt a policy and players should be made to stand. No, he hasn’t actually threatened here, but as I said before, he walks a fine line, imo. I still lean toward letting the fans and advertiser dollars speak on private business matters.

  20. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Football is branded as a sport that appeals to patriotism and conservative values of hard work and loyalty.

    You must not go to sporting events.

    It’s a cultural event.
    The pre-game, game time, and post-game music played at the ballparks, arenas, stadiums are proof of that.

    It often begins with military flyovers of fighter aircraft, and military personnel presenting the flag and singing the national anthem.

    Since 9/11, yes.
    Prior to 9/11, it was done only on opening day, and playoffs.

    It’s another money maker for the NFL.

    NFL returning $723K for sponsored military tributes

    Last year, Flake and McCain disclosed that the U.S. Department of Defense had spent $5.4 million in contracts with 14 NFL teams from 2011 to 2014. Some of those contracts disclosed that payment was for on-field flag ceremonies and tributes to welcome home veterans. One team, the Atlanta Falcons, had made more than $1 million from the department over those four seasons.

    The National Guard, which spent $6.7 million on contracts with NFL teams from 2013 to 2015, dumped its NASCAR sponsorship of Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s car in 2014, after the last four years and more than $100 million spent failed to produce concrete information that the marketing led to more recruits.
    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/15611052/nfl-returning-723000-taxpaye…

  21. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    His role is not to remind us of the hypocrisy of the Left.

    003, why not use the biggest bully pulpit to highlight who it is that is destroying this country? Appeasing libturds only gets us closer to the destruction of the US as it was envisioned by the founders and codified in the Constitution. There is no such thing as bipartisanship. Does not exist. In the dumbocRat world it is always “my way or the highway”. Always. Why should not a President who swore to uphold the Constitution not remind us who it is that is trying to destroy it?

    Please note, I am very well aware sTrumpet talks (poorly) out of both corners of his mouth and detest him for it. My comment is directed strictly at this particular instance.

  22. Dawn Of The Doakes: Fact-Checking MinnPost; Like Cleaning Up Puerto Rico With A DustBuster | Shot in the Dark

    […] friend of your blog mentioned a MinnPost article, in a column captioned Big Words.  Since it’s the MinnPost, you have to wade through the stage-setting lies to search for a […]

  23. Alt-Good Swiftee Avatar
    Alt-Good Swiftee

    Am I the only one that noticed, discuss the 1st amendment and the first thing to pop into teh Peevee’s empty little head is the right to commit infanticide.

    Jayzuz H Cripes.

    There are many reasons a conservative should applaud the protests; defy authority; support the right to say what you want; reject sheepheard mentality.

    There is only one reason to object to the protests; leftists support them. Anything we can do to undermine the left, we must do.

    Leftist reprobates had a gold plated opportunity to do some real damage to Trump after his boorish, foul mouthed rant. But instead, true to form, they found a way to crouch down even lower in the mud.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.