Trump and NFL boycott

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those not aware:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

And thusly the adage remains unbroken, whatever outrageous thing Trump Tweets, there is a equal but hypocritically opposite Tweet from his past.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there some way to explain to conservatives that standing up for the anthem is (1) an act of symbolic speech and (2) consummately politically correct? Then hopefully they will come to understand that what they are really asking the NFL to do is create safe spaces free from offensive political incorrectness.

You're right. This is a version of a "safe space".

Now let's see if you can explain that to liberals as well, so that they will come to understand how "safe spaces" are just a tool for control and suppression of speech.

 

[zooterkin]

Now, he tells the NFL to fire anyone who protests during the National Anthem.

Is that legal?

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

I'm guessing the exact definition of "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation" is what affects whether this applies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're right. This is a version of a "safe space".

Now let's see if you can explain that to liberals as well, so that they will come to understand how "safe spaces" are just a tool for control and suppression of speech.

We need to make them more like republican conventions, have all the free speech done in cages miles away. That is the constitutional answer.

 

[Horatius]

Why don't we encourage a counter-protest, in which all the flag huggers refuse to sit down for the rest of the game? That'll show them!

 

[d4m10n]

Now let's see if you can explain that to liberals as well, so that they will come to understand how "safe spaces" are just a tool for control and suppression of speech.

I fully intend to try to explain it to the illiberal left.

 

[CORed]

Hmm think he will order the military to stop advertising so heavily on football? What would cutting out that stream of cash do to the league?

Comversely, how would removing those ads affect recruitment?

 

[Tony]

I sometimes find myself thinking about the merits of the various sides of this but then I realize it's football and I don't give a **** and spending more than 30 seconds thinking about it is a waste of time.

 

[GlennB]

Is that legal?

...

I'm guessing the exact definition of "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation" is what affects whether this applies.

It also says:

(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

in which only "(2) influences ..." seems to relate to Trump's ravings. If he'd threatened to withold Govt. sponsorship, or prosecute somehow, or similar, then I'd hazard a guess he might have been in breach of the law there.

 

[Brainster]

More than some, less than others.

The President calling for sanctions on USA businesses because of how they handle first amendment issues seems problematic to me.

Sigh. People do have first amendment rights in the workplace, but they protect them only from the government, not from their employers.

And the "sanctions" the President is calling for is a boycott by the public; not some government sanction. Ergo no constitutional issues.

Let me ask you this: Suppose Obama had suggested that people boycott bakeries that refuse to provide wedding cakes for gay marriages. Would that have been problematic to you?

 

[BillC]

And thusly the adage remains unbroken, whatever outrageous thing Trump Tweets, there is a equal but hypocritically opposite Tweet from his past.

News Thump has you covered:

Donald Trump’s biggest critic now his own 2013 Twitter account

 

[Ziggurat]

Let me ask you this: Suppose Obama had suggested that people boycott bakeries that refuse to provide wedding cakes for gay marriages. Would that have been problematic to you?

Not really. In fact, it would be far less problematic than what the government actually did.

Suppose that Trump had suggested compelling players to stand for the anthem through government force. Would that have been problematic to you?

 

[Cain]

Sigh. People do have first amendment rights in the workplace, but they protect them only from the government, not from their employers.

And just because people do not have First Amendment rights in the workplace (or on personal time outside of the company) does not mean there is no protection against political discrimination. Depending on the city or state, a person might even retain an explicit right to expression. Also, governments restrict the political speech of employers by prohibiting companies from, for example, including "Make America Great Again" bumperstickers with paychecks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not really. In fact, it would be far less problematic than what the government actually did.

Yes good Christians should always be able to refuse to serve blacks and Jews.

We need to defend good americans like the one fined $5000 for supporting the president here

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/us/airbnb-host-fine-asian-comment/index.html

 

[The Greater Fool]

Sigh.

Perhaps this is just too strenuous for you.

People do have first amendment rights in the workplace, but they protect them only from the government, not from their employers.

Except for you have the government [El Presedente] telling employers how to handle employee first amendment rights, or suffer government sanctioned boycott. That sounds perilously close to government infringing on 1A rights.

And the "sanctions" the President is calling for is a boycott by the public; not some government sanction. Ergo no constitutional issues.

Sorry, the Prez calling for boycott *IS* a government action. Ergo, yes Constitutional issue.

 

[GlennB]

Except for you have the government [El Presedente] telling employers how to handle employee first amendment rights, or suffer government sanctioned boycott. That sounds perilously close to government infringing on 1A rights.

Sorry, the Prez calling for boycott *IS* a government action. Ergo, yes Constitutional issue.

I hasten to add that my only interest is at the technical, legal level - but did Trump's blathering suggest "government sanction" in any way? To "sanction" something requires the use of official powers, not just the expression of a desire.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I hasten to add that my only interest is at the technical, legal level - but did Trump's blathering suggest "government sanction" in any way? To "sanction" something requires the use of official powers, not just the expression of a desire.

Will no one rid him of this turbulent football player?

 

[The Greater Fool]

I hasten to add that my only interest is at the technical, legal level - but did Trump's blathering suggest "government sanction" in any way? To "sanction" something requires the use of official powers, not just the expression of a desire.

When the President issues an official declaration [Tweets, per DJT Administration, ARE official declarations] that Americans should boycott businesses, it is not "blathering" such as you and I when we take to twitter.

 

[NoahFence]

Admittedly no one liked agitators like King at the time they were protesting either.

I'm rather hoping we don't need to see one of the protesters get assassinated and let the requisite time pass before we address this issue.

I wish we'd stop bitching about the protest and start bitching about systemic racism. I mean all of us.

 

[johnny karate]

You're right. This is a version of a "safe space".

Now let's see if you can explain that to liberals as well, so that they will come to understand how "safe spaces" are just a tool for control and suppression of speech.

If you admit both sides do it, why is it that liberals in particular need this explained to them?

Are you saying conservatives already know it's speech suppression, but do it anyway?