I defend the right of people to kneel in protest during the national anthem even if it does little to illicit the empathy they are looking for. If someone wants to have his friend hold up an American flag and then kneel before it in a public park or other public forum, go for it. Invite the press to film the event, express your purpose in kneeling and make your views known.
But things change if it is a private event. An event people have paid tobe present at or subjected themselves to commercials to view. Sporting events are private events where people have purchased entertainment as advertised. Certainly, I would and perhaps you would agree if you purchased tickets to a movie and then before the movie began someone came down to the front of the theater and began speaking on behalf of a political candidate that you opposed. You did not purchase the ticket to hear a political speech. So people have the freedom of speech, but freedom of speech protects your speech from the government, not the owner of the theater or your employer while you are on “the clock”.
And that is the problem when professional athletes do it at a “sporting event”. I watch sporting events to be entertained not to hear protests. And so when that happens with regularity people tune out and stop going to those events and employers are hurt. I know I stopped watching NFL games and began watching college football and have still not comeback. I simply do not like being subjected to political views during “entertainment events” be they sporting events or entertainment awards.
Like in the theater example, an “employee” does not legally have the right to express a political view when at work especially if wearing the uniform of his employer. Again if you research, you will find that the Bill of Rights does not protect Freedom of Speech in private settings or while you are at work.
This is an important point lost on many Americans who fail to understand our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And encourage you to read and study them more carefully. The Constitution was designed to protects states from the Federal government by spelling out is specific authorities (this was necessary to get them to “join the Union”. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals from all of the state governments by establishing universal citizen rights. Like the balance of power between the branches of government, the Constitution defines the power of the Fed and its limits, the Bill of Rights limits the power of the states and gives the Fed the power to protect individuals when those rights are violated. Again the Bill of Rights relates to our relationship with the government.
The Bill of Rights does not extend to the relationship between employer and employee or protect your freedom of expression on private property. I cannot break down your door march into your house and give a speech on my political views. I cannot kneel on your front lawn in protest. Those are unlawful. Freedom of speech is not an “unlimited” right only a “protected” one. To avoid acts of violence or the need for another revolution, our Founding Fathers laid out acceptable forms of protest and those forms not only address how (speech and press), but where (public places), citizens can express their political views. And finally, the most powerful form of political expression is our right to vote.
Civil Disobedience
I am a huge fan of MLK. MLK was very unique in that he used public transportation and public venues to peacefully protest and encouraged peaceful boycotts of segregated businesses all of which is totally constitutional and in my opinion the reason his protesting worked. He did it right, he got his message out, and the public agreed with him.
At the other extreme was Malcolm X. Malcolm X’s philosophy of achieving ones political goals included using identity politics to form powerful voting blocks and acts of violence to achieve civil liberty. His speeches include the famous phrase by “whatever means necessary”. And sadly, organizations like Antifa follow those beliefs today.
Colin Kaepernick did not follow the MLK approach or the Malcolm X approach. Instead his approach was closer to the Berrigan brothers. What Colin Kaepernik did was follow a non violent form of civil disobedience to express his views. But one of the important tenants of civil disobedience is the willingness to accept the consequences of doing so. Colin Kaepernick was not and so in that respect he failed as a “legitimate” protester. America has always admired those who commit acts of civil disobedience and accept the consequences as long as those acts are not violent and are “limited” with respect to property destruction.
But when Colin Kaepernick sued the NFL many lost respect for him. He was no longer a martyr for what he believed. Instead just another person unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions.
As a classical liberal, I am a fan of the Civil Rights movement, as the father of five African American grandchildren, I support equal treatment by police, but as an American I reject the recent “methods” adopted by some progressives including the violation of private property and the use of violence to intimidate. With respect to Colin Kaepernick specifically, I have simply tuned exercised my right to tune out the NFL and tune in college football.
I have long supported efforts to identify police brutality that targets minorities or anyone for that matter, but I also support efforts to reduce the legal abortion period to under 20 weeks to reflect the medical technology of today unless the mother’s life is threatened or the baby is determined to be no longer viable outside the womb, but I don’t want some Catholic anti abortion advocate football player kneeling in protest of late term abortions during the national anthem.
