I saw this on a Face Book feed:
And it made me wonder whether or not the New York Times is simply helping to defend the NFL because it agrees with the protest, or if the New York Times is simply this ignorant. I ask this because the NFL protest is not about free speech at all, and those who keep asserting that it is are either trying to deceive or too ignorant to be wading in to this debate. These are harsh words, but, if you can give me a moment, I’ll explain why this is true.
First and foremost, let’s start by assuming the NFL protest is an issue of free speech. Guess what? That does not mean you have a right to be free from consequences! Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. So, if ‘the Right’ wants to boycott, demand firings and do its best to damage the NFL over this protest, that is not a sign that the ‘Right’ ‘fails the free speech test:’ it is just the consequences of an industry insulting a core part of its audience. Ask the Dixie Chicks how this works. They insulted the United States while on an overseas tour and it cost them their career. But were they put in jail for it? No! Is anyone calling for the NFL players to be put in jail? No! So, even if this were a free speech issue, the fans reaction cannot be used as ‘proof’ that ‘the Right’ has ‘failed the free speech test.’ In fact, that claim is just the whining of a petulant child who wants to get away with doing whatever he or she wants without suffering the consequences for their actions.
However, as I said, this is not about free speech. Point number 1: the NFL is supposed to be a business. That means the players are employees. Now, it may not be this way in their elite little world, but in the real world, if an employee repeatedly and wantonly attacks a customer, they get fired! They are still free to speak their mind to that customer without fear of going to jail, but they are not free to do so without ramification. This is because we agree to limit our rights when we agree to work for another person or business. You have no ‘right’ to free speech in the employer-employee relationship unless the employer grants it, and even then, you are bound to whatever limits the employer sets.
Point number 2: Does the NFL have a ‘right’ to support this protest? No! Why do I say that? Because a company has no rights! A company is not a person, therefore, it has no rights. Furthermore, in this case, if the NFL support the players — as a corporation — that means it has turned on those stock holders and/or owners of those teams that may disagree with the players. This means the NFL would not only be attacking its owners, but also its creators and controlling Parties, and it definitely does not have a right to do that. It would be like saying the Federal government has a right to go to war with the States. As the States created and retain control over the Federal government, the Federal government has no right or authority to go to attack the States. In the same way, the NFL has no authority or right to dictate to the owners on matters of conscience. And notice, none of this has anything to do with free speech. This is all about the quest for power and control over others: in this case, the NFL, Teams and Players claiming control over each other as well as their customers.
Point number 3: The NFL exists only because the People allow it. The NFL is a legalized monopoly as well as a corporation. Both of these structures are artificial. They require the support of the People to enact and maintain. Therefore, if the NFL supports this protest, and the People object, the People are within their rights — and they have rights because they are actual people — to resend those protections. In this case, that means the NFL owners are free to support the players’ protest, but the People are equally justified if they pull the monopoly protection and corporate charter from the NFL and its various teams. Were the People to do so, they would be within their rights, and it would be a legal action that would — invariably — end the NFL by opening it to massive taxation and legal challenges: but the owners and players would still be free to speak their minds without going to jail.
Point number 4: We can set all that aside because this is not a ‘protest’ in that the NFL and its players are trying to bring about a change in our government. This is actually an act of subversion. We must remember that Kaepernick originally said he was protesting the nation, and he reportedly did so while wearing a Chez T-Shirt. He has since spoke out against the nation while wearing Malcolm X and Fidel Castro T-Shirts. Now, would we consider it a ‘protest’ if the players were ‘protesting’ the NFL while wearing T-Shirts supporting Donald Trump and the resurrection of the USFL? Would we support the players and say it was free speech if they were wearing their jerseys inside out on the field and performing other signs of disrespect toward the NFL on camera, at the games? Or would we consider that an open attack on the NFL? Be honest with yourself. How would you see it if the players were doing something like that? Wearing T-Shirts with TRUMP USFL on them while calling for the destruction of the NFL on the field and demanding that no one do anything to them because they were just “exercising their right to free speech.” Yeah, I think they would be fired on the spot, but that’s just me: one of the last survivors of the real-world, common sense brigade.
That is why this is not about ‘free speech.’ This is about subversion. It is an attack on this nation and its people by the NFL — both owners and players. And there is nothing in the Constitution — or Natural Law, for that matter — that grants an individual the ‘right’ to seek the destruction of Society and the Social Contract without having to face the consequences.
Oh, and one more thing. To those of you who still think an action is speech: how about I knock your head off — literally — and then tell the world I demand to be left alone because I was just exercising my right to free speech? Will that work for you? I mean, I hate to have to get so strong here, but you seem to think actions are speech, so I can’t think of any other way to get through to you. So, how about we let people who get angry with you end you and then just walk away because they were just exercising their right to free speech through ‘symbolic speech?’
And NO! I do not apologize for the harsh tone of this post. People who support and defend the asinine stupidity expressed in the linked article and by those calling the NFL revolt ‘free speech’ are complicit in the lawless attacks on this society. They are at war with our Society and that makes them a public enemy. They are not deserving of our protections, and will not be unless and until they seek to make the changes they desire through the lawful methods provided them by the Constitution. Until then, Society not only has a right to defend itself from such people, it has a duty to do so!