The Law Is on the N.F.L. Players’ Side

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Yeah, um... no.  It was ok when Kaperloser wore pig socks representing cops.  Cuz that’s free speech, eh?

 

  It seems you are trying to say Kaepernick wore those socks in an NFL game, and thus should be covered by the rule book dress code as the players on the list you posted were. He did not. It was  a training camp practice session.

 

    What you posted is a false equivalence. Practice and training camp dress codes are not regulated a strictly as games. Perhaps the author of the list you posted should have researched more and reacted less.

 

   

[Dashinka 23,351]

11 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Perhaps because the rule book addresses all of these issues as uniform code violations that occur in-game. The rule book does not cover things that happen before the game. As I said previously the operations manual covers what happens before the game, and the operations manual only says players need to be present on the sideline. 

But doesn't this negate the OP article?  Based on what has been discussed, the NFL can make rules and enforce them that limit free speech of the players today, so the OP article seems wrong.  Now today there is no rule that says a player must stand for the National Anthem, but the NFL could make this rule for the future using their rule change processes.  As to the list of NFL limits to free speech already, where in the rule book does it say a player cannot kneel after a play?  Lastly, a few weeks ago several teams stayed in the locker room during the National Anthem, wasn't this a violation of the NFL rule book?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Oh, so because he wore the socks and Fidel Castro shirt during training, it’s ok.  Gotcha. 

 

He’s still a disrespectful, over-privileged jerk, and I personally hold no respect for him.  If he wanted to “protest for a cause”, he A) could have picked an actual cause, and 2) did it in a more respectful manner.  Glad to see he is still on the sidelines.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Oh, so because he wore the socks and Fidel Castro shirt during training, it’s ok.  Gotcha. 

 

He’s still a disrespectful, over-privileged jerk, and I personally hold no respect for him.  If he wanted to “protest for a cause”, he A) could have picked an actual cause, and 2) did it in a more respectful manner.  Glad to see he is still on the sidelines.

 

    None of those actions would elicit a disciplinary response from the NFL. If they occurred during the course of a game, they would (should).  We are all free to have our personal opinion on how he conducted himself; that is a separate issue from alleging that the NFL has a double standard in enforcing it's personal conduct policies. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

But doesn't this negate the OP article?  Based on what has been discussed, the NFL can make rules and enforce them that limit free speech of the players today, so the OP article seems wrong.  Now today there is no rule that says a player must stand for the National Anthem, but the NFL could make this rule for the future using their rule change processes.  As to the list of NFL limits to free speech already, where in the rule book does it say a player cannot kneel after a play?  Lastly, a few weeks ago several teams stayed in the locker room during the National Anthem, wasn't this a violation of the NFL rule book?

 

   I'm sure the NFL could change the rules requiring players to stand during the anthem, and if they do they could impose disciplinary action for violations. The OP says the NFL and players union are meeting on this, so perhaps it's not something the NFL can change unilaterally without the players consent, however I don't really know. Until a few years ago, players were not required to be on the field for the anthem at all, but now they are.

 

   I'm not sure where the free speech thing came in to all this or why people think it is relevant to the issue. The NFL is an employer. The issue is not free speech, it's whether employees are violating collectively bargained workplace rules or not. 

[Dashinka 23,351]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    None of those actions would elicit a disciplinary response from the NFL. If they occurred during the course of a game, they would (should).  We are all free to have our personal opinion on how he conducted himself; that is a separate issue from alleging that the NFL has a double standard in enforcing it's personal conduct policies. 

Isn't training camp, and practice still the workplace for these individuals?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't training camp, and practice still the workplace for these individuals?

 

  As I said, the rules for dress code violations apply differently to games than they do to practices. I don't know each specific rule but for games, but all apparel must be in one of the teams designated colors for that game. Practice is not regulated as strictly. 

[bcking 3,157]

9 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

But doesn't this negate the OP article?  Based on what has been discussed, the NFL can make rules and enforce them that limit free speech of the players today, so the OP article seems wrong.  Now today there is no rule that says a player must stand for the National Anthem, but the NFL could make this rule for the future using their rule change processes.  As to the list of NFL limits to free speech already, where in the rule book does it say a player cannot kneel after a play?  Lastly, a few weeks ago several teams stayed in the locker room during the National Anthem, wasn't this a violation of the NFL rule book?

I believe the rule book says teams CAN be fined for violating the rule, not that they WILL be fined. 

 

Who decides that and when I have no idea.

 

7 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Oh, so because he wore the socks and Fidel Castro shirt during training, it’s ok.  Gotcha. 

 

He’s still a disrespectful, over-privileged jerk, and I personally hold no respect for him.  If he wanted to “protest for a cause”, he A) could have picked an actual cause, and 2) did it in a more respectful manner.  Glad to see he is still on the sidelines.

He may be all of those things, but that doesn't mean he broke any rules.

 

I'd also saying kneeling for the national anthem is a pretty darn respectful way to protest.

 

Would you rather he chanted hate slogans holding a tiki torch around a statue?

Were these guys the level of respect you were looking for? 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by bcking

[Eric-Pris 1,602]

Free speech ends at the door to your work building.

 

If they want to protest, they should do so on their own time (outside of work hours), not wearing anything with a company logo (out of uniform), and not on company property.

 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Eric-Pris said:

Free speech ends at the door to your work building.

 

If they want to protest, they should do so on their own time (outside of work hours), not wearing anything with a company logo (out of uniform), and not on company property.

 

Yes and once you are in your work building you are subject to your contract.

 

Kneeling during the anthem does not violate their contract.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

47 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

I'd also saying kneeling for the national anthem is a pretty darn respectful way to protest.

Kneel in front of me during the playing of the national anthem, or while “Colors” is being played, and you’lol most likely find yourself wearing an extra large Coca Cola the rest of the game.  Or movie.  Or wherever we happen to be.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Kneel in front of me during the playing of the national anthem, or while “Colors” is being played, and you’lol most likely find yourself wearing an extra large Coca Cola the rest of the game.  Or movie.  Or wherever we happen to be.

...and I would be the disrespectful one in that example?

 

Very skewed perspective of what makes someone respectful.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

...and I would be the disrespectful one in that example?

 

Very skewed perspective of what makes someone respectful.

That is my right to freedom of expression.  Ain’t America great?!?

 

One great disrespect deserves another, right?  Two rights make it doubly right!

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

That is my right to freedom of expression.  Ain’t America great?!?

 

One great disrespect deserves another, right?  Two rights make it doubly right!

Maybe I misunderstood you.

 

It seemed like you said if I kneeled you would have thrown a coca cola bottle at me?

 

That isn't freedom of expression. That is borderline assault. You don't have that right. You can yell and complain. That is your freedom of expression, but you can't physically hurt me. Throwing something at me is assault, I would say.

 

Edit: it might be battery. I'm not sure. Either way there is a big difference between a protest that doesn't physically touch someone, and someone assaulting a person.

 

Unwanted touching, which would include by extension a liquid (spitting, a drink etc...) is technically an offense. You don't have that right (specifics may vary by state).

Edited October 25, 2017 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I didn’t say anything about throwing a bottle.  I said you’d be wearing a coke.  As in pouring it over your head.  It wouldn’t hurt you, it would cool you down and assist you with achieving rational thought and not disrespecting the very country and soldiers who helped get you where you are today.  Yeah, I’m a little partial towards the greatness of our country.  

And I believe that when you walk away from the violation of a standard, you set a new, lower standard.  So walk away I most likely wouldn’t.  But you have nothing to worry about, because I am sure you’d never disrespect our flag nor our nation.