However, the reason that this seeming censorship may be thought to violate the First Amendment, it is actually within the NFL's rights. As a private employer, the NFL can enact whichever (legal) rules it desires. However, there are still some protections even in private companies. Employees are protected if they make complaints against their boss and other rights such as these. In the end, the NFL has not completely forced all protests to stop, as it has allowed athletes to stay in the locker room during the national anthem instead of standing for it outside.
While it may seem that this gives the NFL unconstitutional power to limit what its players have to say, there are some protections afforded in the drafts and contracts that the player's sign. Additionally, the NFL Players Association works to allow similar protects. So while this may seem like an unfair violation of rights in the NFL (and similar things can be subsequently seen in other private companies), in the end, the laws seem to make sense. There are protections in place for important issues, such as if an employee wishes to bring up a work-related issue to their boss, and this stops a lot of potential civil unrest. The NFL specifically is a tricky case because it advocates for a good cause, but in general, the idea that private companies can limit some types of speech from their employees is not as large an issue as it seems.
I think you made some very interesting points in this post. The NFL banning player's right to protest was very controversial at the time. I think it's interesting that none of the players tried their luck in court by suing the NFL, but then again, the NFL does have the right to do this.
ReplyDeleteI like how you approached the first amendment issue from this angle involving the NFL, especially since it's relevant and shows how the interpretation of free speech has changed over time. When Mr. Stewart mentioned that private companies have their own rights, I was definitely intrigued and wondered how this could be possible. But I realized it's important to remember that running a business is not the same as running a government, and there are certain regulations and rules that employers must consider when they join a company. However, there must be a balance between employer's rights and the personal interests of the business.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe part that you mentioned about the NFL Players Association shows why unions were created in the first place in the twentieth century. Many businesses took away many of the liberties of people who worked in their businesses (because of the fact that they were private employers and that the Supreme Court at the time was very pro-business). The workers were told they could leave the business, but the reality was that they did not have this ability because they were reliant on the business for their income. This relates to the NFL. While the NFL could technically rid of many of the NFL players' liberties (like their freedom of speech by stopping them from kneeling when saluting the flag), many of the players rely on the NFL for their income, so they cannot just quit the NFL. Therefore, as the author in the source https://www.iuoe.org/about-iuoe/union-faqs explains, unions like the NFL Players Association are important because they are almost like a check on the power of private businesses that can take away liberties from workers. Just as the NFL Players Association protects NFL players from having their liberties excessively taken away through drafts and contracts, unions in general protect workers from having their liberties infringed as a result of their employer's actions.
ReplyDeleteI think your distinction between private companies and the government is important. While the government would not be able to enforce this type of rule due to the 1st amendment, the NFL can because they are a separate organization. This leads into an interesting question about private companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube and more. While the first amendment prevents the government from silencing people, big tech is free to remove people from their platform, as they did with Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. These companies have an immense amount of power, as their removal of Yiannopoulos did effectively end his career. Going forward as big tech becomes more and more powerful, I think it's important for us to ask ourselves if they should be held to the same standards as our government.
ReplyDelete