Posted on Oct 11, 2017
NFL Player Makes Unpleasant Prediction About What Will Happen if Players Forced to Stand for...
1.55K
73
18
7
7
0
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 12
I cannot wait for the festivities to begin. I will not be watching but will read about it or see it on the news. Perhaps we can get entire teams to walk off the field and not play thus pissing off even more paying customers. Perhaps only a few will protest and they will get benched and cool the heels.
This has all been made possible by piss poor leadership from Goodell and the Owners. They should have shut this down when it started.
This has all been made possible by piss poor leadership from Goodell and the Owners. They should have shut this down when it started.
(9)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
LFL | NATIONAL ANTHEM RESPONSE
The LFL recognizes everyone's First Amendment right to protest, but our nation's flag and anthem are far too sacred. Too many fellow Americans have made the ...
But they would of been called racist slave owners. I say let it crash their way.
Besides these looks better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKnJzyw4enk
Besides these looks better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKnJzyw4enk
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
When the inmates begin running the asylum there is only one possible destination. That is for the institution to careen out of control and crash. The owners have a huge investment in these teams. The players draw salaries. Big difference. The owners have already allowed the NFL brand to be tarnished and damaged with many fans that are now voting with their feet. The ladies of the LFL get it.
(0)
(0)
And the sound of silence as cash registers everywhere cease to pop open in receipt of the common guys cash that slowly slips away..
(8)
(0)
And that's why you don't give employees a platform to voice their social, political or economic beliefs while working. What Mr. McCoy does not understand is freedom of speech does not apply to the private sector. The NFL players’ protests around the National Anthem reminds us that the First Amendment applies, as a matter of law, only to government action. Employees of private companies don’t have constitutional rights against their employers. Therefore, professional athletes don’t have a First Amendment right to protest at games. Teams can take actions against players, subject to contract provisions and union agreements. They would need to demonstrate some form of racial or religious bias. The racial approach will be hard as 70% of players are black but the rule/policy will apply as well to the 30% white players - its not racially targeting - A religious argument is as well not applicable as its been clearly articulated what this is about.
The best chase if anything is players might have an argument against the government due to Trump's comments and Pence's actions as the government trying to influence the private sector to limit players speech.
The best chase if anything is players might have an argument against the government due to Trump's comments and Pence's actions as the government trying to influence the private sector to limit players speech.
(7)
(0)
MAJ Don Bigger
You are correct.
“A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed.” —Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
Courts have ruled that the First Amendment limits only the government’s ability to suppress speech. In terms of the workplace, they have consistently emphasized that the First Amendment’s strictures do not apply to private-sector employers.
The only people who enjoy First Amendment protection via their employers are people employed by the government. Even then, such employees find their 1A rights are constrained within a fairly narrow band of permission.
As to the players having a case due to POTUS or the VP—every President has used the bully pulpit to try and influence any number of actions in the private sector. However, until they introduce legislation (or an EO) to influence such action, there is no case.
“A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed.” —Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
Courts have ruled that the First Amendment limits only the government’s ability to suppress speech. In terms of the workplace, they have consistently emphasized that the First Amendment’s strictures do not apply to private-sector employers.
The only people who enjoy First Amendment protection via their employers are people employed by the government. Even then, such employees find their 1A rights are constrained within a fairly narrow band of permission.
As to the players having a case due to POTUS or the VP—every President has used the bully pulpit to try and influence any number of actions in the private sector. However, until they introduce legislation (or an EO) to influence such action, there is no case.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next