(12-21-2022 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  "Hening’s attorney, Cameron Norris, said Adair took four substantial actions against his client in retaliation for her refusal to kneel. Norris said she was berated during the halftime of the UVA game, benched during the second half, was criticized later during a team meeting, and had playing time cut during the next two games.

Hening contends she supports social justice initiatives but does not believe in the BLM organization's mission statement, which includes defunding police and criticizing the nuclear family framework, her lawsuit argues."

edit: I'm not sure how you read that and don't takeaway that she wasn't protesting. Yes, she was protesting something different than Kaepernick, which you do touch on. In both instances you have athletes protesting something during the national anthem, and both were punished for said protest. There's a difference in the private vs. public nature, but I feel that this is two sides of the same coin. I find it hard to not have an issue with how Kaepernick was treated and then take up an issue here, unless one's only concern is the implication of a state employee (the head coach).

I personally believe the retribution in both instances was wrong.

I agree with Tanq on the public/private, but it is not an issue I have rasied and has no bearing on my current comments.

It should be pretty clear why I don't read it as her protesting... or 'don't take away that she wasn't protesting'?? Because she specifically didn't protest during the anthem. She didn't 'not kneel' to protest her team-mates... she didn't engage in protest at all, DURING THE ANTHEM. She did not engage in a compelled protest and was punished for NOT engaging in protest. She's only protesting the punishment that followed.... THAT is what her lawyer is clearly referring to. Kaep did both. He protested the flag/state, then he protested the punishment for protesting the flag. They are not the same coin.

As to what you find hard... again, ignoring for the moment the public/private issue...

Athletes quite often stand silently while an OPPONENTS anthem, or the anthem of another, potential enemy nation (arguably something they would be even MORE against than their own) is played... and nobody has a problem with that. If instead they were compelled to sing that anthem... THEN it would be the same/similar... but someone freely choosing to sing is not compelling anything. I believe court cases have decided this.... but am open to being corrected there. If not, then apparently nobody thinks enough about it to even bring a case for 'compelled silence'.

So... there is a clear difference here between someone engaging in protest (Kaep)... and someone NOT engaging in protest (the soccer player). Both arguably broke 'rules' and were punished... but this is where 'compelled speech' and the validity/reasonableness of those rules comes in.

Others have gotten into the idea that Kaep was already a back-up who engaged in relatively unpopular actions that reflected upon the team... and teams may have decided that his value as a back-up QB was not worth the negative attention being brought... which is not meaningfully different from a team declining to sign a player who has a history of domestic violence or public intoxication or even just foul language or what have you.... we've had STARS not be signed for some of those issues... and there is in my mind some merit in that... which is different from this woman's situation as I understand it.... though that seems to be the basis of the defense. I'll add that I agree with them, but it wasn't part of my initial comment either.

For me, it is a simple issue of the difference between someone being punished for doing something they chose to do... and someone being punished for NOT doing something they were TOLD to do. This to me is more akin to the soldier who declines to follow what they believe to be an unlawful order. Standing for the anthem is apparently not an unlawful order. PROTEST during the anthem apparently is... and I agree with that.

To me it's a very mild version of the difference between being allowed to vote for the candidate of your choice... and those nations where the incumbent gets 99.9% of the vote because those who vote against him are jailed or killed.