September 28, 2017

Not For a whole lot Longer

Hey, just 'cause y'all are done...

No, I found a good, temperate piece by supermind Eugene Volokh that I enjoyed reading and that served to calm me down a bit further. He is not too keen on my argument (and David French's) that the President's speech is out of First Amendment bounds:

When the statements carry a threat of governmental retaliation if the employee isn't fired, then they stop being protected and may themselves become First Amendment violations. See, e.g., Okwedy v. Molinari (2d Cir. 2003). But I haven't seen such a threat in the Trump tweets I've read, and it seems unlikely to be implicit, especially since the NFL has little legal interaction with the president.

Score one for Brother jg. But I'm going to take general points that remove it further from the context of a culture war:
It's one thing to expect someone not to express a political view while on the clock, especially if he is free to express it on his own time. It's a graver imposition, I think, to demand that the person express a political view (or be seen as expressing it), even when he is on the clock.

All and all -- unsurprisingly -- a well reasoned view.

Internecine Sports Posted by John Kranz at September 28, 2017 2:52 PM

Well, he did say the latter point was outside of the law and, therefore, his area of expertise. ;)

Whatever happened to "politics stops at the water's edge?" That is the sentiment that is represented by EVERYONE standing for the national anthem. It's not the red anthem, or the blue anthem. At least not until Colin Kapernick tried to make it that way.

I'm not here to compel anyone - just to explain. And if one-third of NFL fans want to boycott over it, hey, it's a free country.

Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2017 4:30 PM | What do you think? [1]