• Light/Dark

New NFL Anthem Policy

Deleted member 12224

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,113
Jersey_Tom said:
As I brought up though there could be something to be said since the league consistently receives government handouts.

Much in the same way that private schools that receive some form of government assistance must adhere to things like Title IX. I think that would be worth exploration.



No doubt. Smith and the rest of the knuckleheads at the NFLPA need to get their act together because they're constantly taking Ls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's nothing to be said. Government "handouts" for physical structures like stadiums in the form of subsidies like tax-free bonds, infrastructure upgrades, and other tax incentives aren't the same as literal federal dollars flowing from the Department's coffers to a private (i.e. not state-run) entity for the purposes of jurisdiction under Title VI, Title IX, Title II, etc.

There are public school districts in this country that don't receive federal financial assistance, and as such, are not subject to the Department's regulatory authority under Title VI, Title IX, Title II, etc.

But that's neither here nor there. Barnette is about the government's duty to not abridge the rights listed in the First Amendment. The NFL is not a government entity. There's no further discussion comparing the two situations worth having at that point.
 
Jersey_Tom

Jersey_Tom

Banned
Dec 2, 2017
4,764
cagey said:
There's nothing to be said. Government "handouts" for physical structures like stadiums in the form of subsidies like tax-free bonds, infrastructure upgrades, and other tax incentives aren't the same as literal federal dollars flowing from the Department's coffers to a private (i.e. not state-run) entity for the purposes of jurisdiction under Title VI, Title IX, Title II, etc.

There are public school districts in this country that don't receive federal financial assistance, and as such, are not subject to the Department's regulatory authority under Title VI, Title IX, Title II, etc.

But that's neither here nor there. Barnette is about the government's duty to not abridge the rights listed in the First Amendment. The NFL is not a government entity. There's no further discussion comparing the two situations worth having at that point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

However, literal state dollars are used in cases such as Minnesota's, Indianapolis', both New York teams, and so on's stadium construction, in some cases footing well over half the bill to build these stadiums. This is an actual example of public funding. Whether it was federal or state money doesn't matter since this is a US Constitutional matter, much as it wasn't a concern in 1943 because we were talking about West Virginia specifically. Supreme Court decisions effect everyone equally. It is within those stadiums specifically and by those owners who received that funding to build those stadiums that I believe that decision could affect.
 
Graciaus

Graciaus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
732
Can't say I'm sad to see it go. But they just created a whole new issue. Now the whole team can just stay in the locker room. I think that would look much worse.
 

Deleted member 12224

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,113
Jersey_Tom said:
However, literal state dollars are used in cases such as Minnesota's, Indianapolis', both New York teams, and so on's stadium construction, in some cases footing well over half the bill to build these stadiums. This is an actual example of public funding. Whether it was federal or state money doesn't matter since this is a US Constitutional matter, much as it wasn't a concern in 1943 because we were talking about West Virginia specifically. Supreme Court decisions effect everyone equally. It is within those stadiums specifically and by those owners who received that funding to build those stadiums that I believe that decision could affect.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The NFL is not beholden to governmental standards to not infringe on freedoms of speech, press, religion, or assembly, because it is not a governmental entity, full stop.

I think you're confused on a few matters in trying to analogize this situation with public assistance for NFL teams' stadiums to Barnette.
  1. The NFL is a private for-profit enterprise comprised of private franchises under a private corporate umbrella. That private franchises play in stadiums receiving public funding doesn't make the situation analogous to a private educational institution that receives direct public funding falling under civil rights statutes, that have explicit written provisions granting the Department of Education jurisdiction over entities that receive federal funding (your Title IX example).
  2. The laws you cite as an example for this analogy are federal statutes, not clauses in the U.S. Constitution. What was at issue in Barnette was constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech without government infringement. Barnette was a public school, and thus part of the local government.
Your theory, in essence, is a private enterprise's acceptance of financial assistance means it's beholden to the same constitutional rules as government itself, i.e. cannot take steps to infringe on a person's right to free expression, which are rules that only control government action.

This isn't a matter of belief of interpreting the law, unless I'm severely mistaken.
 

maruchan

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
2,173
So you cant kneel, but can you turn your back to the flag in protest.. what are they going to do then.
 
Horror

Horror

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
1,997
Anyone else disappointed that not one of the NFL's sponsors (e.g., EA, Pizza Hut, Verizon, Pepsi, Visa, FedEx, etc.) dropped them already?
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
cagey said:
The NFL is not beholden to governmental standards to not infringe on freedoms of speech, press, religion, or assembly, because it is not a governmental entity, full stop.

I think you're confused on a few matters in trying to analogize this situation with public assistance for NFL teams' stadiums to Barnette.
  1. The NFL is a private for-profit enterprise comprised of private franchises under a private corporate umbrella. That private franchises play in stadiums receiving public funding doesn't make the situation analogous to a private educational institution that receives direct public funding falling under civil rights statutes, that have explicit written provisions granting the Department of Education jurisdiction over entities that receive federal funding (your Title IX example).
  2. The laws you cite as an example for this analogy are federal statutes, not clauses in the U.S. Constitution. What was at issue in Barnette was constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech without government infringement. Barnette was a public school, and thus part of the local government.
Your theory, in essence, is a private enterprise's acceptance of financial assistance means it's beholden to the same constitutional rules as government itself, i.e. cannot take steps to infringe on a person's right to free expression, which are rules that only control government action.

This isn't a matter of belief of interpreting the law, unless I'm severely mistaken.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While true, this is also wasn't against any terms of the CBA negotiated between players or the NFL either so regardless of whether or not its against individual civil rights (it likely isn't), it also wasn't against ANY NFL policy to kneel during the anthem.
 
Mage_of_Cinder

Mage_of_Cinder

Member
Feb 13, 2018
1,241
New Jersey
Sounds like they want to keep it out sight, out of mind; as if to say, "you can protest, just don't let people see it. It's bad for business." Also sounds like a "fuck you" to anyone demanding social change.
 

Deleted member 12224

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,113
jviggy43 said:
While true, this is also wasn't against any terms of the CBA negotiated between players or the NFL either so regardless of whether or not its against individual civil rights (it likely isn't), it also wasn't against ANY NFL policy to kneel during the anthem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh I'm not defending this trash ass policy. CBAs aren't my wheelhouse and I know the NFLs CBA is particularly tilted towards the league office, so I don't know if this policy runs afoul of any CBA clauses.
 
Jersey_Tom

Jersey_Tom

Banned
Dec 2, 2017
4,764
cagey said:
The NFL is not beholden to governmental standards to not infringe on freedoms of speech, press, religion, or assembly, because it is not a governmental entity, full stop.

I think you're confused on a few matters in trying to analogize this situation with public assistance for NFL teams' stadiums to Barnette.
  1. The NFL is a private for-profit enterprise comprised of private franchises under a private corporate umbrella. That private franchises play in stadiums receiving public funding doesn't make the situation analogous to a private educational institution that receives direct public funding falling under civil rights statutes, that have explicit written provisions granting the Department of Education jurisdiction over entities that receive federal funding (your Title IX example).
  2. The laws you cite as an example for this analogy are federal statutes, not clauses in the U.S. Constitution. What was at issue in Barnette was constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech without government infringement. Barnette was a public school, and thus part of the local government.
Your theory, in essence, is a private enterprise's acceptance of financial assistance means it's beholden to the same constitutional rules as government itself, i.e. cannot take steps to infringe on a person's right to free expression, which are rules that only control government action.

This isn't a matter of belief of interpreting the law, unless I'm severely mistaken.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm well aware of the private, for-profit nature of the NFL and its division, therein, of its franchises.

My point being that the NFL business is directly benefited by public assistance either in the form of subsidizing or actual monies devoted toward the private business of the NFL. These weren't loans. The money wasn't fronted or paid back. It was a publicly funded stadium that possibly wouldn't have existed unless the public helped pay for stadium through their tax dollars, in some cases more than half of the cost being absorbed by the public. It is my belief that the accepting of the level of government assistance that these teams do does severely bring into question the nature of how "private" they truly all is what I'm saying. Now perhaps as you're suggesting I'm way off base here. But I find it particularly interesting that this policy is being enacted by a "private business" which accepts a great deal of government assistance.
 
Fuzzy

Fuzzy

Completely non-threatening
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,249
Toronto
Any teams other than SF looking into shutting down concession sales during the anthem?
 
GK86

GK86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,022
z3fIjxg.jpg
 
GitarooMan

GitarooMan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
703
Eh I don't like tying this to the first amendment, it's more about a shitty group of owners who treat their employees like shit and are pandering to obvious racism.
 

xnipx

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
142
What upsets me the most is that we are basically admitting that we would rather piss off our black fans than our white fans. The line was drawn in the sand and they chose white $$$
 
RiPPn

RiPPn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,562
Phoenix
xnipx said:
What upsets me the most is that we are basically admitting that we would rather piss off our black fans than our white fans. The line was drawn in the sand and they chose white $$$
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm a white fan and this pisses me off. I don't think the lines are as clear cut as you think. The only dollars they chose were the red hat republicans, a dwindling percentage of the population. Let's see how it works out for them.
 

xnipx

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
142
RiPPn said:
I'm a white fan and this pisses me off. I don't think the lines are as clear cut as you think. The only dollars they chose were the red hat republicans, a dwindling percentage of the population. Let's see how it works out for them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What I'm saying is there's 2 options here:

Piss off the people who support the players right to protest
Or piss off the core white fan base who has an issue

They chose the white fan base and their money
 
Malleymal

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,382
If only the players had the motivation to just fight this in any way and not accept their fate like this.
 

Typhonsentra

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,025
Where are all those free speech absolutists? Pretty fucking gross, Goodell basically sealed his fate playing a racist villain in a movie about this in 20 or so years.
 
Morrison71

Morrison71

Member
Oct 27, 2017
999
xnipx said:
What I'm saying is there's 2 options here:

Piss off the people who support the players right to protest
Or piss off the core white fan base who has an issue

They chose the white fan base and their money
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or option 3, actually talk to the player's association and work out an agreement with them. It blows my mind they didn't even try to talk to them. I really hope this blows up in the owners's face.
 
Parthenios

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,683
Over the holiday weekend, I'm going to look up all of the Super Bowl advertisers and then mail merge each a letter letting them know that my household won't be watching Super Bowls while this is a policy, then cc a copy to the NFL as well.
 
Mariachi507

Mariachi507

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,434
GitarooMan said:
Eh I don't like tying this to the first amendment, it's more about a shitty group of owners who treat their employees like shit and are pandering to obvious racism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Dead on, tying it to the first is similar to those rallying cries like when the duck dynasty shitbag was fired. Ironically, the majority of people who are usually up in arms about the first amendment rights being violated (they weren't) will support these rules. Hypocrites.

I feel for those players, it's either fall in line or quit a profession they've worked their whole lives toward and lose their salaries in the process with no real alternative for a job with another company.

Fuck the NFL.
 
EdibleKnife

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,723
shadow_shogun said:
The View's Meghan McCain erupts after Sunny Hostin calls out racial double standard on NFL protests
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"I would never be ok with someone not saluting the flag"
People who say this never give a genuine reason why or why in a land of freedom and free speech anyone actually has to. Also, "72% of Americans thought Kaepernick was unpatriotic". Is that supposed to mean something? That literally says more about that 72% than Kaepernick. We can point to multiple eras in US history where a vast majority of Americans were vehemently against the efforts of black civil rights. It's a continuous pattern that there will always be Americans who value rules and blind fervent "patriotism" over the pleas of the oppressed and marginalized.

I personally plan to never salute or stand for the anthem anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.