kaepernick
The National Football League (NFL) is apparently considering trying to resurrect the failed doctrine of “Separate but Equal.”
“Separate but Equal” was a legal doctrine used in the United States to justify segregation of black people from white people. From public schools to teacher salaries to public restrooms and drinking fountains, this legal theory held that segregation was OK as long as the separate facilities were “equal.”
What turned out to be the case most of the time was that the “separate” facilities were seldom “equal” and usually far from it.
The concept died an ignominious and well-deserved death after several Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1950’s under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
In the wake of the tragic incident where George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis Police Officers, the cause of which lies somewhere between “criminal negligence” and “First Degree Murder,” and the (very justified) protests and the unjustified illegal looting and rioting, the NFL has decided to play a song known as “The Black National Anthem” (“Lift Every Voice and Sing”) before games this year as some sort of gesture of reconciliation. The same NFL that refused to allow players to display the names and other memorials of Police Officers murdered in the line of duty, now says it plans to allow players to display names and memorials for victims of police violence.
In an earlier Diatribe (http://www.dailydiatribe.net/the-ignorant-usa/#more-828) I pointed out the hypocrisy of players like Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the National Anthem, and the legal right of the NFL to forbid it. Now the NFL seems to have let their pendulum swing even further in the opposite direction.
Playing the National Anthem of the United States i.e. “The Star Spangled Banner” is a custom that is meant to Continue reading
Lately there’s been a lot of debate coming across my Facebook page about the protests of NFL athletes during the national anthem.Some people think the protesting players ought to be fired.
Some people think it’s a form of protected free speech.
Few of them seem to understand freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Newspaper reporters have freedom of speech, in their role as a PRIVATE CITIZEN. They do not, in any way shape or form have “freedom of speech” in their writings for the newspaper, UNLESS THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER GRANTS IT TO THEM. It’s the owners newspaper and the owner is not only free to print what he/she pleases, but is also RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
It’s the same with Freedom of the press. A newspaper reporter writing for the Minneapolis Tribune does not have “freedom of the press” unless they publish their own blog or their own newspaper. Again, the right and responsibility fall to the owner of the newspaper.
