The NFL's ham-handed decision to stop players from kneeling during the anthem is being framed in some quarters as a civil liberties issue, with the players losing their freedom of speech. Sadly, that's not the case. While there is some merit to the argument that the President* orchestrated this via his Tweets, there is no evidence that the state as an entity pressured the NFL to prohibit sideline protests. If anything, this is similar to the dynamic from a few months ago, when the Marjory Stoneman Douglas kids pressured various business groups to discontinue their NRA discounts. Corporations are controversy averse.
I can think of few workplaces where you are allowed unfettered political speech. This isn't a first amendment issue, but a worker's rights issue. Can I have a political bumpersticker on my cubicle wall? That would vary by workplace. But regardless, there is no guarantee of political protest in the workplace.
So, even though this a bullshit nontroversy that has been willfully misrepresented in Foxlandia as being against the troops (it's against cops that kill people for no reason), and even if they shouldn't be forced to participate in involuntary displays of patriotism (though in fairness, they can stay in the locker room), they really don't have much of a legal case. Perhaps they have a case surrounding the CBA, but they don't have a civil liberties case. And even if you agree with them and the point of their protests, that doesn't make it an enfringement on their liberties, anymore than The Atlantic firing Kevin Williamson is a press freedom case.
UPDATE: Here's a contrary view that seems pretty far fetched. It takes a rather broad view of both labor and free speech law and extends it in ways that there is just no way the Roberts' Court would. You can make an argument that political speech is protected at work, but that's a novel argument and many people have been fired for doing just that.
No comments:
Post a Comment