Kneeling for the flag is not going to dishonor veterans

[Deleted]

Those who served and are complaining about how these few minutes long protests by certain athletes affects their persona/feelings are totally missing the point. It's not that we shouldn't care about such people or their feelings, as a rule. They do deserve to be honored. But rather than allow themselves to be immersed in the feeling slighted by some silent protestors, they really shouldn't react, but to look away. Validation is not, or should not be, the real reason why people serve. Ironically, the typical negative/conservative reactions to the protests also has a way of accidentally ensuring that those protests continue to be today's top story with round the clock coverage. Discouragement has only served as an enabler for the Kaepernick protest, fostering it to expand in coverage this season at least tenfold.

The regular national anthem routine is still good for all who choose to participate, and will continue. While the issue has raised controversy, overall the focus of the NFL has still been all about promoting the NFL (perhaps promoting social justice, as an afterthought). But the protest doesn't mean the national anthem doesn't take place anymore, or that the real message behind the anthem is somehow being compromised unnecessarily, or that the protests are in vain. NFL would never even consider cancelling it from being a pregame ritual, indeed most of the teams have responded with owner/player led demonstrations of unity. Any protests that occur have not been intentionally disruptive, such as speaking over the anthem words, messing up words, or making rude gestures toward the flag, or skipping the event altogether to spitefully protest veterans or servicemen. Such actions could be punishable through fines, and would also be reprehensible in the court of public opinion. But kneeling during (or before) the anthem is a personal choice that should provoke thought and conversation, rather than to instigate a negative response or punishment.

[GlitterBro #2]

I believe your comments fit the definition of "mansplaining" - telling someone how they should feel.

How would you feel if, at an Explorers game this season, an Explorer or member of the other team took a knee while the flag was being held by a member of the armed forces?

[explorer88]

Yes it does. The flag is what bonds us as citizens of this country. It ties the person from Louisiana to the one from Indiana. The veterans who fought and serve now do it to make sure we have that. Without it there is nothing but anarchy and opportunity for others to conquer and create chaos. It is extremely offensive to see the Ravens and Jaguars sit for our national anthem and then stand for God Save the Queen. An empire that has oppressed and enslaved many during their existence and these players are not even smart enough to recognize that. I will never accept that it is okay to do what they are doing but I do acknowledge their right to protest. I just wish it was done in another forum.

[coqui900]

Sept 27, 2017 14:55:49 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

I believe your comments fit the definition of "mansplaining" - telling someone how they should feel.

How would you feel if, at an Explorers game this season, an Explorer or member of the other team took a knee while the flag was being held by a member of the armed forces?

I would appreciate and applaud their actions for being a college kid taking a really brave public stance.

[GlitterBro #2]

Sept 27, 2017 18:50:53 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

Sept 27, 2017 14:55:49 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

I believe your comments fit the definition of "mansplaining" - telling someone how they should feel.

How would you feel if, at an Explorers game this season, an Explorer or member of the other team took a knee while the flag was being held by a member of the armed forces?

I would appreciate and applaud their actions for being a college kid taking a really brave public stance.

So you would applaud their blatant disrespect for purposely acting in defiance of Title 36, Section 301 of the US Code (uscode.house.gov/).

Are you also in support of acting in defiance of other sections of the US Code such as those related to taxes, military hospitals, education, the postal service, and the Coast Guard because it could mean taking a brave public stance?  I'm curious which parts of the US Code are OK to openly defy and which ones are not.  


Title 36 §301. National anthem


(b) Conduct During Playing.-During a rendition of the national anthem-

    (1) when the flag is displayed-

        (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

        (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

        (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and



    (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.t displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

[theneumann64]

The Flag Code also says it shouldn't be printed on things like cups, plates, items of clothing, used in advertising, or displayed horizontally (such as across a football field).

I truly believe there are reasonable opinions to be had on several sides of this issue. I can totally see where someone can find it disrespectful, but "It's Against The Flag Code" wouldn't really be high on my list of strikes against it.


The Bob Costas clip on this sums up my feeling pretty accurately. We've reduced the flag, national anthem, patriotism, etc. to symbolize the military, and ONLY the military, and that's a little discouraging to me.

[weston2]

Can't wait for those Olympics.

[coqui900]

Sept 27, 2017 19:06:27 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

Sept 27, 2017 18:50:53 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

I would appreciate and applaud their actions for being a college kid taking a really brave public stance.

So you would applaud their blatant disrespect for purposely acting in defiance of Title 36, Section 301 of the US Code (uscode.house.gov/).

Are you also in support of acting in defiance of other sections of the US Code such as those related to taxes, military hospitals, education, the postal service, and the Coast Guard because it could mean taking a brave public stance?  I'm curious which parts of the US Code are OK to openly defy and which ones are not.  


Title 36 §301. National anthem


(b) Conduct During Playing.-During a rendition of the national anthem-

    (1) when the flag is displayed-

        (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

        (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

        (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and



    (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.t displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

This isn't going to go anywhere good.

But I joked to my friends on Facebook: I'm more upset at how Kid Rock uses the flag than anything a NFL player does during the anthem.

[joe]

Trump started this mess! He is a clown. How can U.S. be a leader in this world with Trump as president. He is not making MAG! NFL players are protesting the president not the veterans. Just watched PBS series the vietnam war. The protests of today do not compare to the protests of the 60s. More people need to realize quickly that Trump is hurting his country and stand up to him before it is too late.

[theneumann64]

I actually think this has been a good discussion, let's not totally make it about Trump (although his comments certainly are apart of this issue).

[GlitterBro #2]

Sept 27, 2017 21:21:05 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

Sept 27, 2017 19:06:27 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

So you would applaud their blatant disrespect for purposely acting in defiance of Title 36, Section 301 of the US Code (uscode.house.gov/).

Are you also in support of acting in defiance of other sections of the US Code such as those related to taxes, military hospitals, education, the postal service, and the Coast Guard because it could mean taking a brave public stance?  I'm curious which parts of the US Code are OK to openly defy and which ones are not.  


Title 36 §301. National anthem


(b) Conduct During Playing.-During a rendition of the national anthem-

    (1) when the flag is displayed-

        (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

        (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

        (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and



    (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.t displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

This isn't going to go anywhere good.

But I joked to my friends on Facebook: I'm more upset at how Kid Rock uses the flag than anything a NFL player does during the anthem.

So, to be clear, you stand by your position of supporting a kid who purposely acts in defiance to the US Code?  Would that be for any part of the code or just this part because other athletes did it?  

[SICguy84]

Have the Right to kneel? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? No.

[coqui900]

Sept 27, 2017 21:37:07 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

Sept 27, 2017 21:21:05 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

This isn't going to go anywhere good.

But I joked to my friends on Facebook: I'm more upset at how Kid Rock uses the flag than anything a NFL player does during the anthem.

So, to be clear, you stand by your position of supporting a kid who purposely acts in defiance to the US Code?  Would that be for any part of the code or just this part because other athletes did it?  

It's because I support the First Amendment, which allows people to protest the government as they see fit. And kneeling during the National Anthem meets that definition. And it certainly outweighs any obscure USCA code that no one even knew existed until these protests started.

[theneumann64]

I'm really not following your reasoning here. Is your argument honestly that what the players are doing is illegal?

[coqui900]

www.ajc.com/news/national/colin-kaepernick-breaking-the-law-not-standing-for-the-national-anthem/cRjlkGqATbYZT3S3AkzJGK/

This article talks about the US Code stuff being tossed around on here and by weird uncles on Facebook everywehere.

Guess what? It's not illegal to not stand during the National Anthem! The word "should" does not mean "Must" or "shall." There are also no penalties assessed with not standing during the National Anthem.

From the article:

According to a Congressional Research Service report to Congress in 2008, “The Flag Code is a codification of customs and rules established for the use of certain civilians and civilian groups. No penalty or punishment is specified in the Flag Code for display of the flag of the United States in a manner other than as suggested. Cases ... have concluded that the Flag Code does not proscribe conduct, but is merely declaratory and advisory."

[GlitterBro #2]

Sept 27, 2017 23:08:14 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

Guess what? It's not illegal to not stand during the National Anthem! The word "should" does not mean "Must" or "shall." There are also no penalties assessed with not standing during the National Anthem.

There are lots of "shoulds" in life. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean you should not do it.  One "should" address their elders properly. One "should" dress appropriately for church. One "should" write thank you notes to people. There's no law saying anyone has to do those things, but people who were brought up properly do all those things.

You still haven't really answered my question though as to what other parts of the code you'd be okay with someone openly going against.  The "weird uncle" part was a nice deflective touch though - casting personal judgment on someone because you disagree with it. 

[theneumann64]

Well now you're making a different argument, which is that's it wrong, which is fine. But your original argument is that it's against the US code, which it's really not based on most people's readings. But by the way, even if it is, here are certain other things that are in Federal Laws, and thus in the US code.

www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-criminal-laws-and-regulations


Again, I'm all for having a discussion and disagreement on this. But we need to be consistent with what we're actually arguing about. If it's a question of what "should happen" that's probably going to offer a wide range of opinions, which is totally fine. But we can't vacillate between that argument and whether it's legal or not (which it pretty clearly is), because we;re going to just chase our own tails.

[GlitterBro #2]

Actually, my originally question was asking why he would applaud blatant disrespect for purposely acting in defiance of US Code and what other parts of the Code he was OK with defying, quoting the code with the "should" as a part of it. Freedom of speech protects anyone for doing this, much like freedom of speech also protects hate speech. It doesn't make it right, it just means both actions are protected by the First Amendment.

I haven't stated a judgment either way on the topic, but was probing with more questions from those who have to understand why and what the limits are.

[GlitterBro #2]

Sept 27, 2017 22:24:23 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

Sept 27, 2017 21:37:07 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

So, to be clear, you stand by your position of supporting a kid who purposely acts in defiance to the US Code?  Would that be for any part of the code or just this part because other athletes did it?  

It's because I support the First Amendment, which allows people to protest the government as they see fit. And kneeling during the National Anthem meets that definition. And it certainly outweighs any obscure USCA code that no one even knew existed until these protests started.

Actually, you are misinterpreting the First Amendment.  Public sector employees enjoy First Amendment protections.  It is an entirely different matter in the private sector, and case law has supported private sector employers firing workers based on their speech or views (except in cases where the employer has been found in violation of anti-discrimination laws - punishing an employee for their religion which is technically not a First Amendment violation in the private sector but is a violation of Anti-Discrimination Laws). 

Now, as I'm sure you know, the NFL is a private sector employer, and First Amendment rules do not apply in the private sector (unless their Union has specifically negotiated those protections...which is doubtful since players get fined for having messages written on their cleats which one could argue is a form of free speech). While you have a constitutional right to protest the government and express your views, you don't have a constitutional right to employment with a private employer or to use the platform of your private employer to express those views, and case law has supported this over the years.

How this applies to players at La Salle I am not certain.  But, as an example, I know that writers for the Collegian can't just publish whatever they want in the paper.  It gets moderator approval, and things can be vetoed.  No one is barking about First Amendment violations in those instances because La Salle is a private school.

[theneumann64]

OK, but in this case the employers aren't prohibiting this kind of speech. I don't think anyone is questioning that they COULD do so if they chose, but they are not doing so at the moment.

[GlitterBro #2]

Sept 29, 2017 9:31:38 GMT -5 theneumann64 said:

OK, but in this case the employers aren't prohibiting this kind of speech. I don't think anyone is questioning that they COULD do so if they chose, but they are not doing so at the moment.

Not so sure, as people are saying they are allowed to protest by First Amendment protections.  Those protections do not apply in the private sector.  I know there was some heated discussion about this on a prior thread based on the interview with Henry and the freedom of speech argument was used by people saying he had the right to use the game as his platform for his message.  However, case law says differently.  

The NFL is in a tough spot with this...damned if they enforce it, damned if they don't.  All the commentators claiming it's allowed under the First Amendment, though, need to look at case law.

[theneumann64]

I think the point being made is that someone has a First Amendment right to protest. His employer is free to restrict that right while he is in the workplace, but is it something they should be doing? There's nothing illegal about what they are doing right now, nor would it be illegal for the employers to order them not to do it.

This isn't a legal question at all, I think we're muddying the issue a bit here.

[MisterD]

How do those who didn't serve and scream "YOU'RE DISRESPECTING THE VETERANS" handle it when veterans support their right to protest? Gotta be weird.

[coqui900]

Sept 29, 2017 9:28:15 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

Sept 27, 2017 22:24:23 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

It's because I support the First Amendment, which allows people to protest the government as they see fit. And kneeling during the National Anthem meets that definition. And it certainly outweighs any obscure USCA code that no one even knew existed until these protests started.

Actually, you are misinterpreting the First Amendment.  Public sector employees enjoy First Amendment protections.  It is an entirely different matter in the private sector, and case law has supported private sector employers firing workers based on their speech or views (except in cases where the employer has been found in violation of anti-discrimination laws - punishing an employee for their religion which is technically not a First Amendment violation in the private sector but is a violation of Anti-Discrimination Laws). 

Now, as I'm sure you know, the NFL is a private sector employer, and First Amendment rules do not apply in the private sector (unless their Union has specifically negotiated those protections...which is doubtful since players get fined for having messages written on their cleats which one could argue is a form of free speech). While you have a constitutional right to protest the government and express your views, you don't have a constitutional right to employment with a private employer or to use the platform of your private employer to express those views, and case law has supported this over the years.

How this applies to players at La Salle I am not certain.  But, as an example, I know that writers for the Collegian can't just publish whatever they want in the paper.  It gets moderator approval, and things can be vetoed.  No one is barking about First Amendment violations in those instances because La Salle is a private school.

Funny you should mention the Collegian. I wrote for the Collegian. I also was a journalist/reporter for large portions of my career.

I graduated well before this incident. But school censorship was actually a really big deal for The Collegian a few years ago. (http://www.collegemediamatters.com/2011/04/16/la-salle-university-collegian-fights-stripper-story-censorship-with-front-page-protest-see-below-the-fold/)

Some nitwit professor decided it was cool to bring in exotic dancers to his class for some reason. The Collegian caught wind of it and was going to publish an article. The school said they weren't allowed to until a complete investigation was conducted. The professional papers found out about the story and started writing about it, too.

The school eventually allowed The Collegian to run the article, but it could not be on the top part of the front page. So the editors got around that by making the top page blank with just a "see below the fold" underneath.

[golasalle]

Sept 29, 2017 9:28:15 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

Sept 27, 2017 22:24:23 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

It's because I support the First Amendment, which allows people to protest the government as they see fit. And kneeling during the National Anthem meets that definition. And it certainly outweighs any obscure USCA code that no one even knew existed until these protests started.

Actually, you are misinterpreting the First Amendment.  Public sector employees enjoy First Amendment protections.  It is an entirely different matter in the private sector, and case law has supported private sector employers firing workers based on their speech or views (except in cases where the employer has been found in violation of anti-discrimination laws - punishing an employee for their religion which is technically not a First Amendment violation in the private sector but is a violation of Anti-Discrimination Laws). 

Now, as I'm sure you know, the NFL is a private sector employer, and First Amendment rules do not apply in the private sector (unless their Union has specifically negotiated those protections...which is doubtful since players get fined for having messages written on their cleats which one could argue is a form of free speech). While you have a constitutional right to protest the government and express your views, you don't have a constitutional right to employment with a private employer or to use the platform of your private employer to express those views, and case law has supported this over the years.

How this applies to players at La Salle I am not certain.  But, as an example, I know that writers for the Collegian can't just publish whatever they want in the paper.  It gets moderator approval, and things can be vetoed.  No one is barking about First Amendment violations in those instances because La Salle is a private school.

No one forfeits their First Amendment protections just because they work for a private employer. I think what you are trying to say is that those FA protections don't necessarily flow to protect their jobs if the said private employer fires them for doing or saying something that the employer doesn't like. If the GOVERNMENT does something to restrict or chill those FA rights while the individual is employed in the private sector, that employee certainly has FA protections.

That being said, don't you think that Cheeto-lini, as the purported head of the Federal Government, isn't violating or at least chilling First Amendment rights of these individuals by advocating that their employees fire them for expressing their FA rights? Another example is his toady standing at a podium in the White House press room, with the power of the White House behind her, advocating the firing by ESPN of their TV host because she dared to criticize His Highness on her private twitter account. I think those are pretty clear cut cases of individuals working for private companies having their First Amendment rights infringed by the government.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Sept 29, 2017 10:17:16 GMT -5 theneumann64 said:

I think the point being made is that someone has a First Amendment right to protest. His employer is free to restrict that right while he is in the workplace, but is it something they should be doing? There's nothing illegal about what they are doing right now, nor would it be illegal for the employers to order them not to do it.

This isn't a legal question at all, I think we're muddying the issue a bit here.

Best argument I've heard on this.

[weston2]

Sept 29, 2017 18:20:20 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

Sept 29, 2017 10:17:16 GMT -5 theneumann64 said:

I think the point being made is that someone has a First Amendment right to protest. His employer is free to restrict that right while he is in the workplace, but is it something they should be doing? There's nothing illegal about what they are doing right now, nor would it be illegal for the employers to order them not to do it.

This isn't a legal question at all, I think we're muddying the issue a bit here.

Best argument I've heard on this.

Just wondering how said employer would react to FA rights regarding Right to Life or being anti-abortion? Would or would not throw the penalty flag? Just wondering.....

[JoeFedorowicz]

Sept 29, 2017 19:24:53 GMT -5 weston2 said:

Sept 29, 2017 18:20:20 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

Best argument I've heard on this.

Just wondering how said employer would react to FA rights regarding Right to Life or being anti-abortion? Would or would not throw the penalty flag? Just wondering.....

I don't understand your question.

[weston2]

Sept 29, 2017 21:06:01 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

Sept 29, 2017 19:24:53 GMT -5 weston2 said:

Just wondering how said employer would react to FA rights regarding Right to Life or being anti-abortion? Would or would not throw the penalty flag? Just wondering.....

I don't understand your question.

It's not a question but a comment. Just switch the issues, and then see if a group of players could do a demonstration regarding how they feel about supporting those issues as mentioned above. A patch ?? think that FA right would be allowed? Maybe if the NFL got money from an organization (see the Armed Forces deal with NFL for patriotism displays of last year as an inducement) that'd allow it?

[victoriouslasalle]

Sept 30, 2017 11:22:47 GMT -5 weston2 said:

Sept 29, 2017 21:06:01 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

I don't understand your question.

It's not a question but a comment. Just switch the issues, and then see if a group of players could do a demonstration regarding how they feel about supporting those issues as mentioned above. A patch ?? think that FA right would be allowed? Maybe if the NFL got money from an organization (see the Armed Forces deal with NFL for patriotism displays of last year as an inducement) that'd allow it?

I greatly appreciate that this issue has been brought to the general board as opposed to being posted in the basketball discussion area. The political discussion can be so divisive.

My take is –for those athletes who see abortion as a social injustice and want to register their concern for this issue I can’t think of a more respectful and dignified way to register their concern than to take a knee during the anthem. Perhaps they can join their fellow citizen’s addressing their serious concerns regarding the unjust behavior engaged in by SOME in law enforcement positions.