(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.
Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.
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 StatesPostal 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).

Yes it is true.
You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'
Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.
Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.
I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees?

Nope, it would not be.

And that's where you go wrong. The rest of this over-long discussion becomes very quickly irrelevant when you consider that.