Freedom of Speech Does Not Guarantee Understanding

Townhall.com ^ | October 26, 2017 | Scott Rasmussen

[Kaslin]

Daily Beast columnist Jay Michaelson is unhappy with America's football fans.

In a thoughtful column, he argues that "kneeling for the anthem is a sign of respect, not disrespect, for our country and the values it stands for." He adds that "To protest -- for whatever cause, left or right wing -- is to make real the best ideals of America: freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law. Protesting brings those ideals into reality."

But as players kneel in protest, America's football fans have not been pleased. Ratings and attendance are down while public perceptions of the NFL have fallen dramatically.

There are many reasons for this, but the fundamental problem is that the message any audience sees and hears is often different than what the messenger meant to convey. That's true in any form of communication on any subject. Michaelson has a clear idea of what he thinks the players taking a knee are trying to say. But others hear something else entirely because we all tend to view the world through our own filters and perceptions.

Many fans (or former fans) enjoy football and other sports as a space free from blatant political commentary. These fans are probably just irritated that political activists have invaded their weekend entertainment. In their view, the players are entertainers and should do what they're paid to do.

Others have come to see the kneeling as a sign of disrespect for the flag, the nation, and the military. That may not be the intent, but that's the perception. Michaelson recognizes this and wants us to "stop talking about their form of protest, and engage with what they're trying to say." But, in the eyes of many, the form of protest has become the central message of the effort.

I happen to agree with Michaelson that the freedom to protest and call attention to our nation's shortcomings is essential to progress. Additionally, I devoted an entire chapter of "Politics Has Failed: America Will Not" to the tragic legacy of institutionalized racism. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and the NFL's celebrity voices could play an important role in that process.

But it is also time for the protesters to recognize that their efforts may be doing more harm than good. As long as there is nothing in their employment contract to prevent kneeling for the anthem, they certainly have the right to protest in this manner. That's what freedom of speech is all about.

But freedom of speech does not come with a guarantee that you will be understood on your own terms. Players and others may think fans are misinterpreting their intentions, but that doesn't mean the fans are wrong. Instead, it means that the protesters must find a better way to communicate their message.

I don't know what that might look like, and I definitely do not think the players should give up and remain silent. But it's probably time for the protesters to declare victory and develop a new approach that can win broad support from their fans and the public at large.

[rxsid]

That's the thing so many on the left seem to not realize, especially the young snowflakes.

Just because you have a 1st Amendment right to speech, doesn't mean anyone is required to listen (or buy what your selling re NFL).

[notdownwidems]

Oh so really Kaperdink was trying to respect America? Ok I guess I got it wrong, sorry! /sarc

[Kaslin]

Only an idiot would think so.

[BlueYonder]

Let’s pretend that NFL players kneeled in support of, say, prolife.

Would the league support their first amendment right to free speech? Or would they crack down on the players?

And where do they draw the 1A line? Could a white supremacist kneel for his cause?

Just wondering.

[trebb]

There are many reasons for this, but the fundamental problem is that the message any audience sees and hears is often different than what the messenger meant to convey. That's true in any form of communication on any subject. Michaelson has a clear idea of what he thinks the players taking a knee are trying to say. But others hear something else entirely because we all tend to view the world through our own filters and perceptions.

What they are conveying is that using the Anthem as a tool to protest specific pet peeves is the way to go. It doesn't help that so many sports figures have been caught in lies about those same peeves...

[Harpotoo]

BS! Do it on your own time!

[Pollster1]

Scott is being diplomatic. By phrasing his point that way, he has a chance of meeting anyone on the other side halfway. He has a chance to convince them to move away from the divisive approach to something productive. The problem is that a productive approach requires recognizing the problem, and that is thug culture, not the police. No one on the Ctrl-Left wants to admit that.

[MortMan]

But freedom of speech does not come with a guarantee that you will be understood on your own terms.

This statement is bass-ackwards these days. For years, the SJW types have pushed the idea that they, as the aggrieved, have sole right to interpret the words or actions of those who have "micro-aggressed" against them. The intent of the offender is immaterial.

Now, they are the offenders, in a way that millions of people see as highly offensive. The outrage is so bad that the SJW idiots are facing potential financial cataclysm. And they are complaining that we, the offended people, are being allowed to interpret their actions exactly as the people who started their movement stated they should be interpreted.

No, that boat sailed and sank in the harbor, SJWs. You are no longer allowed to dodge responsibility for your actions by claiming to be misunderstood. If you want to know why, there are several bakers, florists, and photographers that can explain the concept. (Although you may not be able to understand it.)

[GOPJ]

Let's say a bunch of us went to a National Association of Black Journalists meeting - and our 'intent' was to make them AWARE of our 'feelings' - that 'the black community' MUST take responsibility for the problems in their own communities.

So far so good.

We know we have to 'get their attention' in a way it'll be covered - covered so all members of the black community will hear what WE have to say', So, DURING THEIR OPENING COMMENTS WE YELL, "WAKE UP STUPID NIGGERS'.

Our 'scream out' would be perceived as 'offensive' and hopefully the bimbos at MSNBC would rush to the cameras to declare their belief in 'free speech' under the Constitution.

But, would we be able to pretend we were unaware of how offensive our actions were - even after being told for months that it was offensive? I don't think so - our excuses would not be believed. And the excuses of these players should not be accepted either.

We know when someone is giving us the finger - just like they know when they're doing it to us. Scott Rasmussen would hold us accountable and he should hold the NFL players accountable.