Do NFL Players Have Right of Free Speech? No! (Vanity)

Self | 09/24/17 | Self

[KevinB]

I've seen so many threads in which it is incorrectly said that the players have a right of free speech that I thought someone should explain what the right of free speech actually is. (I am an attorney.)

Here is the text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Emphasis added.)

As the text makes clear, the Constitutional right of free speech only applies to government action. In private enterprise, there is no right to free speech. A private employer can absolutely fire someone for saying things the employer doesn't like whether those things are said during or outside of working hours. There is no right of free speech other than that stated in the First Amendment and that is limited to acts of the government.

NFL teams hire players to put as many rear ends in seats and eyeballs on screens as absolutely possible. If those players are out there antagonizing half the customers, that player is not doing what he was hired to do. Unless the player has a contract granting that right, the employer is free to terminate the player for engaging in those activities. There is no Constitutional protection for engaging in those activities in a private employer-employee relationship.

[tbw2]

The Dallas Cowboys told players you cannot do anything pro-cop after the BLM murderer killed 5 cops in the city.
Players have been told nothing pro-9/11.
So yes, owners can say no BLM crap, either, or they can choose to tolerate this divisiveness.
And their audience has the right to watch something else.
Given that most people watch sports to relax or ignore daily life, the politicization means the audience will find another escapist activity than the NFL.

[TBP]

Yes — as individuals, off teh feild. But as employees of NFLteams, at work, no. None.

The line from Billy Joel’s “My Life” applies here: “And you can speak your mind, but not on my time.”

#BoycottNFLAdvertisers #BoycottTheNFL

[atc23]

The right to free speech is greatly enhanced provided the individual has something interesting or enlightening to say - I can't remember any professional who plays with his balls ever being given such a distinction.

Let's face it, the NFL is in a death rattle and once people are gone, they're not coming back.

We must be a white supremacist culture to give big fat blacks such a prominent role in our Sunday rituals - :-(

[familyop]

I do agree with you on the team owners’ right to fire the NFL players. By firing them, the employers would not be violating their right to free speech. They would be free to say whatever they like before and after being fired, as long as they don’t violate the rights of others (as long as they don’t make terroristic threats or the like).

[libertylover]

Thanks for the info.

[ConservaTexan]

Regardless of whether or not it's Constitutional, I believe we need to expand first amendment rights with regard to what people say outside of working hours.

More gubmint is not the answer, and while we're at it, let's shred the Constitution.

[Dick Bachert]

[CJ Wolf]

yes that is a bad title, better would be " DO NFL Players have a RIGHT to protest whilst on the JOB? " I'd like to know if that applies to me as well?

[KevinB]

With all due respect, pretty much everything you said in that lengthy post is wrong. :-)

[familyop]

"Yes — as individuals, off teh feild...The line from Billy Joel’s 'My Life' applies here: 'And you can speak your mind, but not on my time.'"

That's a popular assumption, but it is really the law? An employee could damage his employer's business to the extent of shutting it down with antithetical speech or other odd indulgences outside of working hours.

[waynesa98]

not entirely true. lets say kapernack starts promoting nambla, and instead of being a washed up has been he’s tom brady, due you think he would last 10 min? Same with this taking a knee. ratings were off 10-20% last season, down another 17% this season. the rams (I thinks its the rams) can’t fill the stadium at $15/ticket. when the nealson ratings come in showing total viewer ship down say 30% that’s going to be a loss of 300-500 million to advertisers, and could trigger a massive downward price for TV contracts. thus the temper tantrum of the players could get a permanent ban on players. Just wait for the advertiser boycotts. Just wait for the military to pull their relationships. these spoiled brats are killing the golden goose and they don’t care.

[TexasGator]

It’s all in the contracts.

[oldplayer]

SSS Two, Thank you for your patience and courtesy in explaining the 1st Amendment to some otherwise misguided Freepers. If it is this hard to explain on Free Republic, can you imagine trying this on Dim Dummies?

I started to join in, but you were doing a good job. And, I’m undoubtedly less patient than you.

Freepers like you make this a great spot on the internet. All the best.

Oldplayer,
Cushing, Oklahoma

Geez, though, the 1st Amendment is not that hard to understand. It doesn’t create any right at all. It just protects our already existing God given right. Don’t EVEN bring up how it now applies to the individual States!

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Good luck getting or keeping a job when the SJW's achieve their complete takeover.

Then you'll have no option but the anti-conservative one of going on welfare.

Corporate America is no longer on the side of conservatism or Christianity. They probably never were. They probably just pretended to be Christian when Christianity was the "in thing". Now that social justice is the "in thing" we are on the out ... and will be kicked out when they find out we are not sufficiently pro-home, pro-tranny, pro-feminism, pro-envirofascism, etc.

[KrisKrinkle]

“As the text makes clear, the Constitutional right of free speech only applies to government action.”

But “...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

“In private enterprise, there is no right to free speech.”

Even in private enterprise, a person has a free speech right to say “No” to a request for sexual favors.

Sometimes there may be a conflict between one person’s right and another person’s right. We have a system of laws and courts and such to resolve such conflicts.

[Chode]

the military should shun the nfl like it has AIDS!!!

[SSS Two]

Thank you for the kind words.

[GOPJ]

People have free speech on a job... they can stand up in the center of their company and say, ‘This company sucks’...

Of course the company also has free speech and they can say, “You’re fired’...

Yes, we have free speech, but we don’t have speech without consequences. Tell your wife she looks fat in the new dress... You have that right... then see what happens.

[familyop]

Yes. I wrote too much too hastily. Sorry about the noise.

Here's my argument in short. The First Amendment presumes the right to freedom of speech by saying that Congress can’t legally reduce "the freedom of speech." There were quite a few written mentions of that intent before the Constitution was written.

But firing an employee is no violation of an employee's freedom of speech. We are not forced to buy anything from someone we disagree with. Fire the disrespectful players.

But left-leaning employees are often in fact being treated by legislators (many of them attorneys) and courts as though they have constitutional rights to keep their jobs and to take the revenues of men. The same practice is common in divorce law. That's because it is widely assumed that men are generating the revenues and are the most lucrative targets. Those who don't generate enough revenues are sometimes imprisoned for and with contempt.

On the issue of professional sports players, the fear might be that of lawsuits alleging racial discrimination. The players are wealthy and capable of hiring many of the most costly lawyers.

[I'm not an attorney. This is only a discussion of policies.]

[V K Lee]

YES, they do. AS DOES the baker, the photographer, and any other business who stands for held principles and beliefs. However, the difference IS that OTHER BUSINESSES are squelched before blossoming into an all out media war. The players are promoted and praised for their actions.

See the difference here? Who deserves justice and who among US does not?

DJT will win this fight whichever way the wind may blow.
THE POINT will be made. A touchdown or a safety, he has the points The man is nothing less than that of a genius :)