NFL Bans Kneeling During National Anthem

[Lennys Tap]

PR move to win fans back?

[Silkk the Shaka]

PR move to win fans back?

This will backfire tremendously

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is the right decision IMHO. Bans kneeling but specifically allows players to choose to remain in the locker room if they don't wish to participate in the national anthem.

[WarriorFan]

finally...

[Pakuni]

This is the right decision IMHO. Bans kneeling but specifically allows players to choose to remain in the locker room if they don't wish to participate in the national anthem.

Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.

Yep. 

[Lighthouse 84]

Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.

I think their point is made if there are only 10 players on the sideline for the anthem. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.

I don't believe players have the right to protest at their workplace. I don't think its an appropriate venue.

But I also don't believe that an employer has the right to make their employees participate in a political action such as the national anthem. So for me both sides are being addressed.

I also think you are making some assumptions about the players motivations. When Kap was first asked about it, he never called it a protest. He said he didn't want to honor a country that allows for this much oppression of people of color. If we take him at his word, than this is an acceptable solution.

[Pakuni]

I also think you are making some assumptions about the players motivations. When Kap was first asked about it, he never called it a protest. He said he didn't want to honor a country that allows for this much oppression of people of color. If we take him at his word, than this is an acceptable solution.

Two points:
1. You're only partially quoting. In his first remarks explaining his decision to sit during the anthem at two preseason games, Kaepernick said "I have to stand up for people that are oppressed." That's clear indication that he viewed his actions as a protest.

2. Dozens of players took actions (kneeling, sitting, bowing heads, raising fists) during the anthem last season. Not all were Colin Kaepernick. If anyone is assuming motivations, it's you ...  for assuming that all demonstrating players were motivated by the same thing, and that thing is just a portion of Kaepernick's motivation.

[StillAWarrior]

Dozens of players took actions (kneeling, sitting, bowing heads, raising fists) during the anthem last season.

As you reference, there are many ways to protest.  As far as I've seen, the only two that I've specifically seen that are prohibited are kneeling and sitting.  Staying in the locker room could certainly be seen as a protest -- particularly if the athlete doing so makes it clear that he is staying in the locker room as a form of protest.  The press will, no doubt, report that in order to keep the issue in the news (and drawing eyeballs, selling magazines, etc.).  Bowing heads, raising fists, linking arms, etc.  All can be forms of protest.  How about placing their left hand over their heart.  Pretty much anything can be a show of protest if you tell people that you're doing it in protest.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Two points:
1. You're only partially quoting. In his first remarks explaining his decision to sit during the anthem at two preseason games, Kaepernick said "I have to stand up for people that are oppressed." That's clear indication that he viewed his actions as a protest.

2. Dozens of players took actions (kneeling, sitting, bowing heads, raising fists) during the anthem last season. Not all were Colin Kaepernick. If anyone is assuming motivations, it's you ...  for assuming that all demonstrating players were motivated by the same thing, and that thing is just a portion of Kaepernick's motivation.

I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what individual motivations were and it doesn't matter to me. I think private businesses should have the right to tell their employees that they can't protest in the workplace.

[Pakuni]

I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what individual motivations were and it doesn't matter to me. I think private businesses should have the right to tell their employees that they can't protest in the workplace.

And you're completely entitled to that opinion.

[Pakuni]

Jets' owner says he'll cover the fines for any player who protests.
It'll be interesting to watch which owners follow suit ( I'm guessing the two buffoons in Texas), and how/whether that affects their relationships with players.

https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/national-anthem-christopher-johnson-fines-1.18700702

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And you're completely entitled to that opinion.

I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure its not just an opinion, but a law of the land. Private companies have the right to regulate the speech of their employees. As an example, that's how the NBA forced Donald Sterling out.

I am very pro free speech....including a private company's ability to respond to the speech of its employees with speech.

[GGGG]

I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure its not just an opinion, but a law of the land. Private companies have the right to regulate the speech of their employees. As an example, that's how the NBA forced Donald Sterling out.

I am very pro free speech....including a private company's ability to respond to the speech of its employees with speech.

Sterling isn't a great example.  He wasn't employed by the NBA.  He owned a team in an association with other team owners.  More akin to a partnership with bylaws regulating their actions.

But yes, employees may have their free speech rights limited by their employer.  My guess is that it must be related to their job or the company they work for however.

But in this case, there is a CBA that doesn't mention this as a violation of a rule.  So there is hardly universal agreement that the NFL's action is appropriate.

[Pakuni]

I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure its not just an opinion, but a law of the land. Private companies have the right to regulate the speech of their employees. As an example, that's how the NBA forced Donald Sterling out.

I am very pro free speech....including a private company's ability to respond to the speech of its employees with speech.

Ugh. Can't believe you're walking me down the semantical rabbit hole.

You said "I think private businesses should have the right ..."
That's an expression of your opinion (saying what you think someone should have).
Had you said "Private businesses have the right to ...."
That's an expression of a fact.

That said, the right of a private business to regulate employee speech is hardly all-encompassing.

I don't recall there being much debate here about what the NFL's lawful rights are here with regards to player protests. The debate has been how/whether the league should exercise its rights.

[Golden Avalanche]

Not going to get them far since it doesn't address the twin issues of their product being terrible and some of their participants suffering great mental anguish prior to their premature deaths.

Nice bone for the culture warriors though and, really, that's all that matters.

[Jockey]

As you reference, there are many ways to protest.  As far as I've seen, the only two that I've specifically seen that are prohibited are kneeling and sitting.  Staying in the locker room could certainly be seen as a protest -- particularly if the athlete doing so makes it clear that he is staying in the locker room as a form of protest.  The press will, no doubt, report that in order to keep the issue in the news (and drawing eyeballs, selling magazines, etc.).  Bowing heads, raising fists, linking arms, etc.  All can be forms of protest.  How about placing their left hand over their heart.  Pretty much anything can be a show of protest if you tell people that you're doing it in protest.

I understand what you are saying and don't mean this as any argument to your main point (which I agree with).

But won't showing players coming out of the locker rooms late, rednecks booing, and hot takes on the Web letting us know which players hate America be basically the same as protesting on the sideline? Doesn't it still give the Orange sh#tgibbon a reason to attack athletes?

Any decent man would ask police to stop assaulting and murdering removing the need to protest?

[Lennys Tap]

I don't believe players have the right to protest at their workplace. I don't think its an appropriate venue.

But I also don't believe that an employer has the right to make their employees participate in a political action such as the national anthem. So for me both sides are being addressed.

Well reasoned and well said.

[jesmu84]

Forced patriotism is the best patriotism

[jesmu84]

If the anthem and flag are that important, then the NFL shouldn't allow concessions or other sales. Further, they should uphold the entire flag code.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Ugh. Can't believe you're walking me down the semantical rabbit hole.

You said "I think private businesses should have the right ..."
That's an expression of your opinion (saying what you think someone should have).
Had you said "Private businesses have the right to ...."
That's an expression of a fact.

That said, the right of a private business to regulate employee speech is hardly all-encompassing.

I don't recall there being much debate here about what the NFL's lawful rights are here with regards to player protests. The debate has been how/whether the league should exercise its rights.

Gotcha, didn't mean to walk you down a rabbit hole. I guess the debate was always different for me. I never had a problem with the NFL telling players they shouldn't protest. My problem was that they forced players to participate in the national anthem against their will.

If the anthem and flag are that important, then the NFL shouldn't allow concessions or other sales. Further, they should uphold the entire flag code.

The hypocrisy is rife for sure. Its honestly laughable. Unfortunately the biggest hypocrites are the fans and they don't answer to anybody.

[Billy Hoyle]

how appropriate that this decree came out the same day at the video of the MPD and their egregious abuse of a fellow professional athlete was released.  You know, the reason the protests were happening in the first place.

I will continue to stay in the concourse or use the restroom during the anthem and I hope others will do the same.

[MU82]

Thank goodness for this new rule. The republic is saved!

[HouWarrior]

Jets' owner says he'll cover the fines for any player who protests.
It'll be interesting to watch which owners follow suit ( I'm guessing the two buffoons in Texas), and how/whether that affects their relationships with players.

https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/national-anthem-christopher-johnson-fines-1.18700702

Usually Jerry Jones is the bigger buffoon...but on this subject .....Houston's own Bob McNair has easily been the biggest buffoon. He even let it affect the onfield product.As....

Here we even traded away (for almost nothing) a much needed OLT Duane Brown, who spoke out after McNairs ..."inmates running the asylum"... comments.

I suspect this area, was always trumped up, a bit , as an issue....social/broader issues will always linger....

if the players wish to unite on an issue it should be their health....watch the current Bryant Gumbel Sports segment on HBO concerning NFL denials/nonpayment  of claims....ie the pattern of deny, deny, until you die...really sick stuff