Mixing
How are Trump's actions against NFL protesters not a violation of Constitutional rights?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose career seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
Here is a related Trump media event as reported CNN: Trump credits his Twitter wrath for Kaepernick's unemployment.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose career seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
Here is a related Trump media event as reported CNN: Trump credits his Twitter wrath for Kaepernick's unemployment.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
4 hours ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
3 hours ago
5
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
I think the biggest falsehood in this whole mess is that Kaepernick was a good QB. Once defenses figured out the read option, he really had no QB skills. No teams signed him, because as a backup, he would have been more trouble than he is worth. Tom Brady could kneel before games while burning a flag and 32 teams would sign him in any given offseason.
– Jamie Clinton
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Sorry for the late reply. I'm still having a hard time reconciling things. I'm a computer security architect by trade. If I go into the office I can't harass a female employee on break and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. I can't go offsite, teach a class, and harass a female [adult] student after class at a social event and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. In both cases it is me and I represent the company. I don't understand how the disconnect occurs for Trump's. He is the head of the country and executive branch. His actions speak for government; can't be disgorged.
– jww
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose career seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
Here is a related Trump media event as reported CNN: Trump credits his Twitter wrath for Kaepernick's unemployment.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose career seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
Here is a related Trump media event as reported CNN: Trump credits his Twitter wrath for Kaepernick's unemployment.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
united-states us-constitution free-speech
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
1395
1395
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
asked 4 hours ago
jww
1418
1418
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
4 hours ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
3 hours ago
5
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
I think the biggest falsehood in this whole mess is that Kaepernick was a good QB. Once defenses figured out the read option, he really had no QB skills. No teams signed him, because as a backup, he would have been more trouble than he is worth. Tom Brady could kneel before games while burning a flag and 32 teams would sign him in any given offseason.
– Jamie Clinton
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Sorry for the late reply. I'm still having a hard time reconciling things. I'm a computer security architect by trade. If I go into the office I can't harass a female employee on break and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. I can't go offsite, teach a class, and harass a female [adult] student after class at a social event and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. In both cases it is me and I represent the company. I don't understand how the disconnect occurs for Trump's. He is the head of the country and executive branch. His actions speak for government; can't be disgorged.
– jww
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
4 hours ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
3 hours ago
5
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
I think the biggest falsehood in this whole mess is that Kaepernick was a good QB. Once defenses figured out the read option, he really had no QB skills. No teams signed him, because as a backup, he would have been more trouble than he is worth. Tom Brady could kneel before games while burning a flag and 32 teams would sign him in any given offseason.
– Jamie Clinton
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Sorry for the late reply. I'm still having a hard time reconciling things. I'm a computer security architect by trade. If I go into the office I can't harass a female employee on break and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. I can't go offsite, teach a class, and harass a female [adult] student after class at a social event and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. In both cases it is me and I represent the company. I don't understand how the disconnect occurs for Trump's. He is the head of the country and executive branch. His actions speak for government; can't be disgorged.
– jww
1 hour ago
3
3
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
4 hours ago
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
4 hours ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
3 hours ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
3 hours ago
5
5
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
I think the biggest falsehood in this whole mess is that Kaepernick was a good QB. Once defenses figured out the read option, he really had no QB skills. No teams signed him, because as a backup, he would have been more trouble than he is worth. Tom Brady could kneel before games while burning a flag and 32 teams would sign him in any given offseason.
– Jamie Clinton
1 hour ago
I think the biggest falsehood in this whole mess is that Kaepernick was a good QB. Once defenses figured out the read option, he really had no QB skills. No teams signed him, because as a backup, he would have been more trouble than he is worth. Tom Brady could kneel before games while burning a flag and 32 teams would sign him in any given offseason.
– Jamie Clinton
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Sorry for the late reply. I'm still having a hard time reconciling things. I'm a computer security architect by trade. If I go into the office I can't harass a female employee on break and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. I can't go offsite, teach a class, and harass a female [adult] student after class at a social event and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. In both cases it is me and I represent the company. I don't understand how the disconnect occurs for Trump's. He is the head of the country and executive branch. His actions speak for government; can't be disgorged.
– jww
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Sorry for the late reply. I'm still having a hard time reconciling things. I'm a computer security architect by trade. If I go into the office I can't harass a female employee on break and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. I can't go offsite, teach a class, and harass a female [adult] student after class at a social event and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. In both cases it is me and I represent the company. I don't understand how the disconnect occurs for Trump's. He is the head of the country and executive branch. His actions speak for government; can't be disgorged.
– jww
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group's cause, even if that group is practicing their rights to express their views legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group's cause, even if that group is practicing their rights to express their views legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group's cause, even if that group is practicing their rights to express their views legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group's cause, even if that group is practicing their rights to express their views legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group's cause, even if that group is practicing their rights to express their views legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
answered 3 hours ago
IllusiveBrian
29217
29217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
3 hours ago
1
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
"[T]he Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally" Is that really true? Doesn't, for example, Blair v. Bethel School District argue otherwise? "The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out." The administration has already conceded that the President's Twitter posts are official actions. If officials can take official actions that retaliate for protected speech acts, what's left of the first amendment?
– David Schwartz
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
@DavidSchwartz Maybe antagonistic isn't the right word, I mean that they are allowed to take a position that a particular person or group's speech is wrong. I'll edit to clarify.
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
Something else I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure on, is that the Administration doesn't have any statutory restrictions on speech. It certainly has all the rights of any citizen or organization, but I don't know if it can also say things that would run afoul of speech-restrictive laws such as slander without legal repercussion (obviously impeachment is always a threat).
– IllusiveBrian
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31873%2fhow-are-trumps-actions-against-nfl-protesters-not-a-violation-of-constitutional%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
4 hours ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
3 hours ago
5
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
I think the biggest falsehood in this whole mess is that Kaepernick was a good QB. Once defenses figured out the read option, he really had no QB skills. No teams signed him, because as a backup, he would have been more trouble than he is worth. Tom Brady could kneel before games while burning a flag and 32 teams would sign him in any given offseason.
– Jamie Clinton
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Sorry for the late reply. I'm still having a hard time reconciling things. I'm a computer security architect by trade. If I go into the office I can't harass a female employee on break and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. I can't go offsite, teach a class, and harass a female [adult] student after class at a social event and claim it was "Weekend Jeff" doing it. In both cases it is me and I represent the company. I don't understand how the disconnect occurs for Trump's. He is the head of the country and executive branch. His actions speak for government; can't be disgorged.
– jww
1 hour ago