Steelers valued in the middle of the pack (stadium, financed)

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by RogersParkTransplant

Sure, gg, they don't have to play the game. But they do. That's really not a reason to take away their freedom of speech.

But, nobody is advocating restricting the players' right to express their political opinions.

The 1st Amendment only protects us from undue Government restriction of our right to express our political opinions. But, there are certain limitations to our right that the Government can enforce, most often referred to as "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions.

But, the NFL and its consumers are not the Government. Thus, the NFL has the right to restrict the players' rights to express political opinions and consumers have the right to turn the games off.

The players, like all citizens, are free from undue Government restriction of the right to express their political opinions. But, they are not free from the consequences of expressing those opinions.

[Yac]

9 deleted posts later, please remember to remain calm, respectful and on topic.
Yac.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

But, nobody is advocating restricting the players' right to express their political opinions.

The 1st Amendment only protects us from undue Government restriction of our right to express our political opinions. But, there are certain limitations to our right that the Government can enforce, most often referred to as "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions.

But, the NFL and its consumers are not the Government. Thus, the NFL has the right to restrict the players' rights to express political opinions and consumers have the right to turn the games off.

The players, like all citizens, are free from undue Government restriction of the right to express their political opinions. But, they are not free from the consequences of expressing those opinions.

Yes, but the highest levels of government should not be advocating the firing of private company employees for their speech or protests. The government is trying to sway the public opinion of someone's free speech in a manner that hurts the employer's business and reputation in hopes that that employer will silence the protestor.

[Paul2421]

the steelers keeping the players in the locker room was a decision to avoid potential backlash from players kneeling. it was a business move more than anything else. the rooneys care about money and nothing else.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

the steelers keeping the players in the locker room was a decision to avoid potential backlash from players kneeling. it was a business move more than anything else. the rooneys care about money and nothing else.

I did find the Switzerland tactic odd for a team that came up with the Rooney Rule.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Yes, but the highest levels of government should not be advocating the firing of private company employees for their speech or protests.

The highest executive is a US citizen and the 1st Amendment protects his/her right to express a political opinion.

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

The government is trying to sway the public opinion of someone's free speech in a manner that hurts the employer's business and reputation in hopes that that employer will silence the protestor.

Yes? And?

So long as the Government is not silencing political speech, its administrators are free to state their opinions.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by RogersParkTransplant

If anything brings down the NFL, it's more likely to be the new evidence for long-lasting brain damage to players than it is the protests.

Yes. This is why I personally no longer watch football. I'd be willing to watch touch football, but I'm guessing most NFL fans watch because they like watching the man-on-man physical contact (Copanut can insert gay joke here).

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Yes, but the highest levels of government should not be advocating the firing of private company employees for their speech or protests. The government is trying to sway the public opinion of someone's free speech in a manner that hurts the employer's business and reputation in hopes that that employer will silence the protestor.

One of the best responses I've read anywhere on this issue.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

The highest executive is a US citizen and the 1st Amendment protects his/her right to express a political opinion.



Yes? And?

So long as the Government is not silencing political speech, its administrators are free to state their opinions.

Yes he is protected by the 1st Amendment (oddly the same way the people who are protesting are, but for them he finds it offensive), however the government is not allowed to attempt to influence the employment decisions of private businesses. Granted, the law also states, "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation" so he is probably in the clear because he will say it is their actions not their affiliations that he is speaking against. But it is hard to argue against the idea that he is hoping to get his base to go out against the NFL to hurt them financially. What would appease those boycotters? Firing the kneelers. It doesn't have to be illegal to be unjust.

[gg]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Yes, but the highest levels of government should not be advocating the firing of private company employees for their speech or protests. The government is trying to sway the public opinion of someone's free speech in a manner that hurts the employer's business and reputation in hopes that that employer will silence the protestor.

He picked a fight and he won the battle. Divide is no in place as you can clearly see on the field. Players confused and trying to do the right thing. Picking and choosing what side they are trying to be on. What happened to football being a fun time away from politics and work? This is working perfectly for the one that provoked it. Ugly, but well played.