Legal Football

Colin Kaepernick has topped headlines for the past 2 years over his decision of kneeling during the national anthem before the start of the NFL games that he played in. His decision was sparked by the overwhelming amounts of racial injustice. While his actions sparked both positive and negative responses, one of the major issues with his action was that his protests were during times in which he was technically working. While I do understand the issues that his protest creates under a labor relations standpoint, I personally do not believe that his protests would be as powerful if it were not when he did it. As a public figure, he used his publicity to bring light to issues that he did not agree with and since he believed that he could not stand for an anthem of a nation that does not stand with people like him, he used his public presence to show the community his disdain. I think that in regards to punishment towards Kaepernick for his actions, he is currently and has been experiencing a lot of hatred against him from the public as well as not even being able to play football due to a possible collusion amongst the NFL teams. Although we mentioned how the First Amendment does not apply in this situation due to the fact that the players protesting are doing so under their work hours, the fact that President Trump and Vice President Pence have declared their stances on this issue and even attempted to get the NFL players to all stand or be fined details how the involvement of the government in this situation should be something that the players can protest about. In a sense, even though the players in this situation were under working hours, their right to protest cannot necessarily be stripped from them.

One thought on “Legal Football

  1. You make a really good point. It is important to recognize that Kaepernick’s protests would likely not have had the level of visibility that they did had he protested at any other moment or at any other venue. It also powerfully evidences his level of commitment to the cause. In this way, denying him the ability to exercise free speech at that moment curtails his ability to exercise a certain kind of expression, a highly visible, committed message.