(12-20-2022 09:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/virgin...2c2381a814

A reverse Kaepernick - interesting.

OO, how do you feel about this story and how this student appears to have lost playing time because of her political stance around kneeling? Should she have lost playing time because she used her voice to protest during the national anthem?

She did not lose playing time because she protested. It is alleged she lost playing time because she refused to protest a issue she did not believe warranted a protest. No need to try to twist this into a free speech issue.

We all agree that Americans have the right to protest, within limits. They also have the right to not protest at somebody else's direction.

It appears from the account that the issue and protest were the coach's.

so the issue becomes, does a coach have a right to force players to protest an issue, using PT?

How about a boss? A corporate officer? A policeman? Anyone in authority?

It's two sides of the same coin - by standing she was effectively protesting against those who knelt. Per the player, she was being singled out for her actions which were making a statement - which is 100% a free speech issue. Her decision to not kneel during this statement is her statement (i.e., speech).

I 100% agree that Americans have the right to protest or not protest, which is why I called this a reverse Kaepernick. She was punished for her decision to stand, while he was punished for his decision to kneel. Both retaliatory actions taken against these individuals were/are problematic.

One is a state action against a person.

There is a world of difference.

Lets take the Kaep action to a different angle.

I have dinner party, and ask all the guests to toast Donald Trump. One person refuses. I have a clear right, albeit stupid, to ask that one person to leave.

You really shouldnt mix and match state actors and private actors with Constitutional issues as you are apparently trying to do presently.

Oh c'mon, I'm not mixing Constitutional issues at all. You've just now brought up Constitutionality. That wasn't part of the discussion before - not even in your own comment which focuses on a coach ("I think it was atrocious for the coach to condition playing time on a demonstration of political speech.")

We weren't speaking of the legal ramifications until you brought it up just now. If we are going to speak about the legality of this, I would agree that the legal ramifications could be different - but I know I'm out of my depth in terms of the legal ramifications of a private employer (NFL) versus a state employee (Va Tech coach).

I thought we were just speaking about the retaliation by a team/coach against people who wanted to protest.