A look at the Details Behind the Cavs’ Kyrie Irving trade
August 23, 2017Carrasco’s Contact Management Conundrum
August 23, 2017It used to be you could watch a football game without needing (or receiving) a civics lesson, but alas that is no longer the case. As recently as a few years ago, football was a sport with a solid ethical core of violence, courage, gambling, and cunning — an ethical core recently diluted by pesky things like health concerns and social responsibilities.
Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was an undeniably marvelous talent that once looked like the sport’s future (remember that Packers game???), led his team to a Super Bowl, squandered his chance at his sport’s shiniest trophy, became increasingly erratic, and lost his confidence with his head coach, in that order.
In any other era, he would have had the requisite shame to quietly descend into obscurity as a factoid on the losing side of Joe Flacco. Then, Kaepernick knelt during the “Star-Spangled Banner” last summer to protest and draw awareness to police brutality and police mistreatment of African-Americans. Several other football players followed.
When I first heard the Kaepernick news, a multitude of Kyles had viewpoints. The cynic in me thought it was a publicity stunt; the even bigger cynic in me thought it was a ploy to put 49ers coach Chip Kelly in a political position to have to start Kaepernick; the patriot in me thought how bad-ass it was that he was exercising his freedom as an American and how awesome it was to live in a country where someone could do that; the football viewer in me was annoyed that it was going to spawn an entire month’s worth1 of terrible opinions; the socially aware person in me thought it was a nice attempt to draw attention to a worthwhile issue; the skeptic in me questioned Kaepernick’s sincerity; the slacker in me didn’t care what the hell Kaepernick did with his time; the golden retriever in me wanted a slice of bacon; the political strategist in me wondered whether those who opposed Kaepernick’s viewpoint would be too trigger-happy to ignore the protests and thus draw attention to his position, inadvertently advancing Kaepernick’s goal; the nihilist in me thought, “It doesn’t matter anyway because nothing matters”; the realist in me knew it would be impossible to have any meaningful or nuanced discussion on free speech or the Kaepernick matter; the media critic in me knew it would be a challenge to rise above the avalanche of bullshit sure to be initiated by Kaepernick’s decision; and the aspiring writer in me assumed someone somewhere would write the piece I thought deserved to be written.
But, most importantly, the civil liberties advocate in in me took it as a fact that it was within Kaepernick’s freedom as an American to kneel or sit or lie down or roll over during the national anthem if he wanted. And, that is about the coolest thing ever and one of the top reasons I love this charming disaster of a country. So, I didn’t bother writing about it.
But, then a few funny things happened. The Kaepernick story somehow never went away — again, even though the best way to render Kaepernick irrelevant would have been just to ignore him. Despite some great ones (including from WFNY!), no one wrote the column I wanted to read, so I could just read it instead of having to feebly attempt to write it myself. Then, on Monday night before the team’s preseason game against the New York Giants, several Browns players knelt in prayer during the national anthem, bringing the sit/stand/kneel issue into my own small Ohio-related orbit.
It’s hard to discern exactly many players were involved. John Breech of CBS Sports said 10 players knelt in what he called the “NFL’s largest national anthem protest.” Cleveland.com listed Isaiah Crowell, Duke Johnson, Jabrill Peppers, Christian Kirksey, Seth DeValve, Jamie Collins, Kenny Britt, Ricardo Louis, and Jamar Taylor among the participants, and observed that DeShone Kizer, Shon Coleman, Britton Colquitt, and Jason McCourty stood with the players arranged in a circle. Deadspin proclaimed that Browns tight end Seth DeValve was the “first white player to kneel for the national anthem.”
I’ll share how two Browns players felt in their own words. Christian Kirksey explained why the players chose prayer as the vehicle for their statement in the video from Daryl Ruiter below. DeValve said he “wanted to support my African-American teammates today who wanted to take a knee. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that there’s things in this country that still need to change.” Both remarked on their respect for the country and those who have served it. DeValve called the United States “the greatest country in the world.” The team issued a benign but tacitly supportive statement at halftime, days after Hue Jackson had done much of the same.2
#Browns LB @Kirksey explains why they chose prayer for their method of protest tonight pic.twitter.com/LdRkDmWY6c
— Daryl Ruiter (@RuiterWrongFAN) August 22, 2017
#Browns TE Seth DeValve explains why he participated in the prayer during the anthem pic.twitter.com/T8PhmsDKcL
— Daryl Ruiter (@RuiterWrongFAN) August 22, 2017
While the volume of discussion on the kneel protests has been at 11 for months and the nonsense factor a few decibels above that, I’ve yet to read any discussion that relies on the the best resource we have on the freedom of expression: the words of the United States Supreme Court.3 In the U.S., the freedom of speech is protected in the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.4 While judges can be knuckleheads too — for sure — this country’s First Amendment cases are rich with eloquent and beautiful defenses of the freedom of speech. Just as importantly, the rhetoric contains tactics for countering opposing viewpoints that don’t involve social media tantrums. These cases are bountiful primary sources for impassioned defenses of one of our country’s most revered principles… and no one in the media thought to look to them for inspiration!
I’ve excerpted three Supreme Court cases. There are many more both in favor of and in opposition to the freedom of expression as it exists under fluid and ever-changing U.S. law.5 I’ll point out that — despite popular misconceptions — the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects Americans from the government interfering with your freedom of speech, not the NFL, your boss, or Instagram.6 But free speech as a principle exceeds that restriction on governmental power and interpretation of the law affects how we view it more broadly. These are three of the let’s say eight most informative cases when it comes to freedom of speech, including how it relates to the American flag. These excerpts are short on legal arguments, so you don’t have to be a lawyer to follow along, or a judge to be moved. Most of these cases deal with much graver and consequential subject matter than what someone does between beer commercials before an elaborate game of catch.
The first excerpt is from West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a case in which the Supreme Court found that a child who was a Jehovah’s Witness didn’t have to follow a rule requiring schoolchildren to salute the American flag. Jehovah’s Witnesses do “not go through the form of a pledge of allegiance to any flag,” as it is against their religion. The case was decided in 1943, in the middle of World War II. Via Justice Jackson:7
[W]e apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
The next quote is from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In this 1969 case, an Iowa public school made a rule forbidding students to wear black armbands in opposition to the Vietnam War. A few students wore these black armbands — peacefully, and with no disruption to school activities — and the school suspended them. The Supreme Court found the suspension unconstitutional, as the symbolic speech by the students was within their freedom of expression. From Justice Abe Fortas:8
[In our American] system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.
…
The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol—black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement in Vietnam—was singled out for prohibition.
The last excerpt comes from Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 case from Texas. After a uhh “lively” march protesting the policies of president Reagan, Gregory Lee Johnson unfurled a flag, doused it kerosene, and set it on fire in front of Dallas City Hall. The state government of Texas prosecuted Gregory Lee Johnson for violating a statute that outlawed burning the American flag. The Supreme Court found the conviction unconstitutional as a violation of Johnson’s freedom of expression. While burning the flag is fairly gnarly, would it be hard to imagine a law forbidding someone to kneel during the national anthem? Justice Brennan wrote the following in 1989:
We are tempted to say, in fact, that the flag’s deservedly cherished place in our community will be strengthened, not weakened, by our holding today. Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson’s is a sign and source of our strength. Indeed, one of the proudest images of our flag, the one immortalized in our own national anthem, is of the bombardment it survived at Fort McHenry. It is the Nation’s resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees reflected in the flag—and it is that resilience that we reassert today.
The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. … We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one’s own, no better way to counter a flag burner’s message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by — as one witness here did — according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
As far as my own feelings, I’m of the opinion that compulsory patriotism is no patriotism at all.9 I’m not only thrilled but exhilarated to live somewhere where I don’t have to salute or bow or kiss a flag or sing a song because the state wants me to. I do it because I want to. Anyone can choose to kneel during the national anthem for a good reason or no good reason.10 It can be to raise awareness of social injustice, to protest the outcome of The Bachelor, or to demand that the stars and stripes be changed to a pile of flapjacks and a bowl of Cocoa Puffs. And the freedom to do that makes me feel patriotic as hell. I’m proud that the Browns players exercised their right as Americans to kneel in prayer on Monday night, and I think it was a nice gesture on Seth DeValve’s part to kneel with his black brothers to support them — isn’t that what good teammates do? Even had they taken positions that I thought were lousy causes like “deport sea otters” or “Friday morning meetings,” I would try to understand why they took positions I disagreed with so strongly.
And you don’t have to agree with me. If you want to cease watching NFL football because some players don’t waive their pom-poms during pregame rituals, that’s your prerogative — even if I think that’s the dumbest of 100 reasons to quit watching pro football. If you want to tell me to shove my [redacted] into [redacted], follow your dreams (but consider reevaluating them). The American flag is a cherished symbol because it lets you call it names and spread nasty rumors about it, and it’s still willing to give you a hug and buy you a drink afterwards. And if you think that Colin Kaepernick or Seth DeValve or Christian Kirksey “should” stand during the “Star-Spangled Banner,” more power to you. But your “should” isn’t our “must,” and that’s about the raddest thing about being an American I can imagine. Go Browns.
- Turns out, year’s worth. [↩]
- They largely echoed those sentiments on Tuesday. A fair if unenthusiastic response, in my opinion. [↩]
- Someone may have done it. There have been thousands of opinions written, posted, or transcribed from broadcasts. I confess I didn’t read all of them. It could be buried in my “Reading List”/Links Graveyard. [↩]
- And applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment … an unimportant distinction for non-lawyers. [↩]
- Also of note: While the United States is not a moral authority on a lot of things, a lot of other countries do look to the U.S. for guidance on matters of free speech. [↩]
- The First Amendment reads, “Congress [read: the government] shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … .” [↩]
- At 319 U.S. 624, 641-642. All the bold is my emphasis. [↩]
- At 393 U.S. 503, 508-511. [↩]
- Just as compulsory Patriot-ism is no patriotism at all — just ask Jamie Collins. [↩]
- Although it is nice to have a good one. [↩]
116 Comments
thanks NJO … i just read the flag code myself … you-da-man.
Yes, that’s a great point. Why isn’t this discussion started by asking “why should an NFL player have to deal with a political act (aka the anthem) just to play football (aka do my job)?”
That seems completely reasonable. I would submit that people of color feel disrespected by various facets of this country, for various reasons, and that using a peaceful, silent, public platform to draw attention to that fact is also completely reasonable.
Best not to assume when it comes to a question of law. I also think it good form to cite my sources when possible to make a clear distinction between what’s my opinion and what’s something other.
As Njo said above, I can comprehend — both intellectually and on a personal level — why kneeling for the anthem would be perceived as disrespectful. That’s a reasonable viewpoint. But I would ask whether you are also open to comprehending why young black men might be deeply disturbed and moved into action by the way people in their community are policed and treated by the criminal justice system.
It would be great progress if people on the right could at least accept (or not outright reject) that there is a major social problem to be taken seriously, and equally positive if the left could acknowledge that there can be legitimate critiques of the tactics used to raise the issue
you know i love ya , man … but we can & will have to disagree on this one. you know i respect your POV.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1ab91931a3d56a2a8666f0ab36f2ecb52dd536afefb6c3a835b9f75c6aebe35.png
… she has earned some respect.
Yeah, I get that. And there are a whole lot of worse ways that players could protest. The kneeling is fairly benign.
But I still don’t like it one bit, and neither do many many other good and decent people. Sure, there are vile racist loudmouths and such who don’t like it either, but that should not diminish the fact that many good people have what we feel a valid complaint.
yessir, no doubt. and same.
Yes, it was certainly political theater, and I would never leap to the defense of the DNC. But it was quite a powerful moment, and would be hard not to grieve with the Khan family for the loss of their son. Mr. Khan’s speech and symbolic gesture captured something powerful/mythical about America as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws
though it was a bit contrived , i agree with you.
I’d take it any day over Obama’s saccharine 2004 convention speech that still, to this day, is catnip for liberals 🙂
I certainly do understand the discontent with injustice. Some behavior by law enforcement has been appalling, and some of these cowboys ought to go to prison and many others should never be allowed to hold a gun again. (But then we get into other issues, such as resisting arrest, where the benefit of the doubt rightly, in my opinion, goes to the police. But that’s a whole ‘nuther thing that I don’t care to pursue right now.)
Again, I’m not offended by the topic of the protest. It is absolutely a good cause. I object only to the manner of protest.
I reject the claim that the DNC was competent enough to organize anything.
A million +1 upticks.
Stop playing the anthem and while we’re at it remove the religious references from all government items as well please and thank you.
LMAO !!
We should all agree that
the internetScout makes things worse.Fixed that for you.
It might bring the majority together, but there will always be a minority that resists and ends up ostracized.
Humans have no chill. Worse, we’re easily manipulated. That’s why I think it best to not allow the government and military to associate patriotism with something social and apolitical, like watching or playing football.
Hey Marty, I get it and it’s your right to be appalled. We are the sum of our experiences, and we all set our limits as to what is intolerable.
I would just submit this thought. Many of the same very good and decent people have been so betrayed by our system of government, they have had to resort to measures they know will be perceived as disrespectful. In most cases, they themselves will be torn between an act of defiance or protest and whether they are in fact being disrespectful or selfish. Yet there they are doing what they are doing at risk to their own security and well being.
That’s when we know something is seriously wrong. Problems don’t solve themselves, they have to be dealt with. These acts are the symptoms, not the problem, and we have to look past them to get to the root causes or the symptoms will get a lot worse.
Well said, jpf.
[resorts to Rush lyrics]
Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled
I couldn’t agree with this more. I also suspect that the kneeling for the anthem thing is an excuse to avoid discussing the real issues. Most people don’t want to, and the disrespect angle gives them an out to avoid the topic indefinitely. While I most definitely do not believe that kneeling for the flag is disrespectful to anything or anyone, even if it was, who really cares? Does this perceived disrespect give an eternal pass to avoid talking about the hard issues? Just move on, and get to the substance. Perhaps if the substance of the protests were addressed in any meaningful way, the protesters would feel less compelled to protest in the first place.
And as I said elsewhere, if the root causes and problems were addressed, perhaps people would feel less compelled to protest in the first place. As it stands, many of them have the not incorrect perception that many people believe a song and a flag are more important than human dignity.
And the protesters are unquestionably entitled to dignity as human beings that transcends fabric or verse.
And if we’re all learning lessons, some on the left could consider why it is that many Americans are so passionate about the flag, about what they may have sacrificed for it, and why they try to focus on the good of this country instead of its bad.
To quote another lefty who dislikes most of the left:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD_EzUiVYAAvko5.jpg
eloquently put … are you by any chance an attorney ?? … if so , you are going to be thrilled , as we have a gaggle of them on this board.
Ha good catch. I am, unfortunately.
While it was most certainly political theater, there was no large sum of money paid to the family:
http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-375000-clinton-foundation/
Get off Breitbart my good sir.
that’s great … I’ll have quite a few options when the need arises.
“we got rid of prayer in school”
Thank god.
….wait.
I would expect nothing else from a Canadian rock band, smh
LMAO !!! … hi CHRIS … you are always lurking , waiting for just the right moment to pounce on me. however , i did say i would have to check my facts.
this only proves that the document was false , that doesn’t mean they weren’t paid … I’ll do a little digging as well … have a good one.
man , I’m missin’ GARRY today … i would love to hear what he thinks.
Well, except that is not quite true. If there is any school that refuses or attempts to silence prayer or voluntary sharing of faith, then I would direct those individuals to file a complaint with their local ACLU chapter.
Freedom of speech/expression is a two-way street. Owners of sport leagues are welcome to play the National Anthem to exercise their right. Show up 10 minutes later if you prefer not to partake (most people do anyway).
“Humans have no chill”
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll5kjpyuRZ1qa395ko1_250.gif
In closing, we didn’t solve anything today and I’m sure no one expected that we would. I certainly didn’t expect to change anyone’s mind.
But the reason I wanted to dwell on this today is that I want to speak up against some of the “stupid alt-right neocon racist goons hate Colin Kaepernick because they’re stupid alt-right neocon racist goons” narrative that is out there and that some people believe without question. I hoped to discuss this in a non-snark, non-sneering, non-condescending, non-dismissive way, and I’m happy to see that we did it
Peace and love guys. See you tomorrow.
Speaking of the ACLU, I am impressed that they stand by their convictions even when it means backing unpopular groups like the KKK.
Indeed.
“Owners of sport leagues are welcome to play the National Anthem to exercise their right”
No argument from me there as long as those upset at the display from the athletes understand “two way street”.
Go ahead and play it, but don’t tread on me if i don’t stand.
As you will see from my comments, I have a consistent stance on this topic.
In fairness to them, they talked with Lee first and discussed the possible outcomes for the company and for him personally, and asked if he’d prefer to be moved, to which he asserted.
It’s not nearly as bad as it’s being made out to be.
Your first sentence should be shared throughout the country. I feel like it’s what’s lost in all of the vitriol being spewed.
I’ve been watching from afar. Have decided to stay out of the fray as much as possible from now on. But since you asked (and thanks):
If I was still in the military and required to attend an NFL game as part of the regular “dog and pony show” (which I generally loathe, FWIW), I believe that I would find a way to stand directly next to one of the players kneeling, would place my left hand on his shoulder pads, and salute the flag with my right. My gut churns when I see these guys doing it, but I recognize that my gut response is personal; I think the “protest” is generally incoherent and entirely misdirected, but I also understand and sympathize with their perspective of the country, even if I intellectually disagree with the perspective. To that end, I will actively defend their right to do whatever they want during the anthem. That, to me, is what the song stands for, and that is what the military stands for, not vice versa. If I was forced to attend a game in uniform as some outward expression of America, I would do everything I could to provide that impression, which is what I think is right.
As for the Browns specifically, I’m torn between irritation and pride in my team. I admire that they decided to take a different approach, and I love the sentiment of praying for the country if you think the country is screwed up; at the same time . . .
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” Matthew 6: 5-6
thanks GARRY … good post. this is pretty much what i thought you’d say … except it’s a wee bit tamer than i thought … i laid-it-out there a little bit knowing my remarks would be considered plague-like … have a good one.
Hardly plague-like. If everyone here agreed it’d lose it’s charm.
Good stuff per your norm.
On just the last paragraph:
I have always interpreted that verse to mean that you should not pray so others think you pious but you should pray because you want to talk to the Lord. Nothing less, nothing more.
The question here is if the extrapolation of them noting they were praying being done so to gain favor or if they were just answering as fact when asked. I am unsure there.
Thanks.
I think that’s a great interpretation. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that it’s a legalistic, ritualistic construct. The text is clear that the intent was to warn away from doing things for the purpose of being seen by others. What I find gnawing (not quite irritating) about the Browns players’ exhibition was that it wasn’t prayer for the sake of prayer. They wanted to make a statement (to be observed by others); they also wanted to do something that was respectful; they decided to “pray”; but that prayer was, in form, actually an exhibition to be seen by others. Ultimately, they got what they were looking for, and I generally think they got positive attention. Still … not actually what prayer is intended to be. But oh well. That’s between the praying parties – the communicators and the Communicator – and not my business.
The National Anthem is not to be hijacked as an expression of gratitude for the military. It exists as an singular expression of patriotism – aka attachment of one’s homeland. Yes people have spilled blood for our freedom but the purpose of that contribution is freedom itself, not so people would one day stand at attention for a song.