Someone else offered upthread the suggestion to go back to the playing of the anthem prior to players taking the field at all. I know that removes the anthem as a venue for pursuing some form of protest, but it certainly also takes away all the flag/military/'merica bullshit getting mixed in to the equation related to the players.
That was probably me. The players coming out of the locker room for the anthem only started since around 9-11.
It’s a shame that disrespecting freedom of speech is not a thing for those people.
You know you can have freedom of speech, but you don’t get freedom from the consequences of your speech. And that is what the players are getting, right or wrong.
I thought free speech was reserved for right wing trolls at liberal college campuses and Nazis with Tiki torches.
/s
You mean how like Cal Berkley welcomes people of differing opinions to speak?
Ditka was vocally pro-Trump during the election. Though, assuming he voted in Illinois, it didn’t change anything.
That might have been a decent solution if they had done it before the season started. It would be a major controversy now, I think.
Yes, kind of like that.
When a university stops a fascist from speaking on campus, they are explicitly taking a stand against fascism.
And when the NFL stops players from protesting racism, they are explicitly taking a stand in favor of racism. They have the right to do this. But this too will have consequences.
I don’t think it will have much negative impact on the NFL. The audience has consistently polled in favor of making the players stand for the anthem. The majority of the NFL’s consumers do not care about the intended meaning of taking a knee.
I suppose the players could revolt, but I doubt they will. Many were content with milquetoast demonstrations like taking a knee before the anthem or linking arms for “team unity” so I think they’ll mostly fall in line. The ones that don’t? Well, they can always go hang out with Kaepernick and enjoy their infamy.
Monday night viewing has been down for several years. I am not sure about Sunday or Sunday night games though. But viewership did drop last year on Sundays.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or really believe what you are saying? Imagine a place of higher learning where only one view is correct because it’s the PC one? Where if someone disagrees with you they are silenced.
Is that the world you want?
I think the common explanation for that is changing demographics: Boomers dying off, millennials not being as interested in football, concern over injuries, etc. I suspect a lack of geographic identity in younger folks might also be a part of it.
A world where nazis and fascists don’t have a platform to stand on (hell, even better, where they don’t even exist) sounds good to me.
And of course where you get to decide who the Nazi’s and fascists are. I don’t want to live in that world.
While universities ought to be bastions of free thought and should err on the side of allowing distasteful ideas to be expressed, I’m not sure their mandate requires them to provide a platform for individuals who, for example, avowedly advocate the genocide of racial minorities. There are still street corners and public parks for those folks.
Or maybe, just maybe, a place of higher learning who chooses not to let someone speak as the event would be a tinderbox waiting for a match strike to cause a riot with unforeseen effects. Establishments walk a fine line between allowing those of any opinion give a presentation, and hosting an event which becomes a major safety issue to anyone involved. Safety is important and is part and parcel to this exact phrase here …
Monday night games are often a crummy matchup now that Sunday Night is the featured “Game of the Week”. That was very specifically done within the TV contracts when NBC took over Sunday Night Football. They get to “flex” the schedule into having the best game (on paper anyway) on their network on Sunday night. This happened because ABC wanted to move Monday Night Football to cable on ESPN. That’s a major reason why ratings have gone down for MNF.
I see this common refrain in arguments about free speech but in these latest cases these people are LITERALLY nazis and fascists. It’s their whole purpose. It’s how they identify. When someone TELLS YOU that’s what they are, I think it’s fair to apply my rule above. Slippery slope does not apply.
It’s also a false dilemma fallacy. In other words, no, you don’t have to allow anyone and everyone to speak to therefore represent multiple voices that people can hear. You can certainly say no to many voices, but allow others, and yet still give a representation from multiple angles with completely different parties.
If you did want to pursue it as a false dilemma though, then the same could be said for Liberty University or Brigham Young University guest speakers. None of them represent fascists either, nor do they typically speak about other religions, as an example. And being non-liberal schools, should not the reverse be true here in that they too should allow speakers of multiple opinions?
EDIT: Editing here to say I don’t mean to dogpile on you @scuzz It’s just that I heard this same mention from some conservative friends of mine who also were against NFL players being able to speak their minds in interviews. I chose not to point out their dissonance between the two topics, but your mention reminded me of it. Sorry, man.