Maybe Donald Trump really is is a superhero! He seems to have the power to offend, even drive Leftists/"progressives" insane by merely opening his mouth.
Yesterday's "offense" was saying, "Wouldn't it be great, the next time one of these athletes takes a knee during the Anthem that one of the owners says, 'Get outta here, you're fired! Wouldn't that be great?"
Well, a LOT of people would see that as "great."
Many others wouldn't.
Some Americans are appalled, mostly because they don't really understand the 1st Amendment. That's kind of sad, them being Americans and all, but it says far more about the sad state of education in our country, than anything else.
The 1st Amendment ONLY protects us from government censure, that's the government outlawing any specific speech.
Radio hosts have (rightly) been fired for views an outlet worries "reflect badly on the station."
Hell, Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was fired over telling the truth about NYC's sordid #7 subway line.
It's NOT OK for any of us to condone views we agree with and support condemning and sanctioning those we don't like.
The 1st Amendment was specifically put in place to protect unpopular, controversial, offensive speech; That of Communists, Nazis, KKKers & Black Panthers alike...from government action.
Trump's a bombastic guy, by design. It's worked for him. He says what lots of people feel and he validates those views by often putting them across directly, even crudely.
In this case, he DID NOT even threaten any government action. He speculated, "Wouldn't it be great IF..."
That was speculation/personal opinion, NOT a threat of any government action, nor even a suggestion. IF any POTUS threatened to force an industry to fire workers for their views, THAT would violate the 1st Amendment. This opinion does not.
YES, however, a company CAN choose to fire a member of NAMBLA (a pro pedophile group), a Nazi, or a black panther, if that status is public, or known, for "Representing that company in a damaging light." Such views hamper commerce and misrepresent a company.
Police, firefighters, teachers and most other workers (private & public) CANNOT protest, or make political statements at work...and rightly so. Doing so misrepresents the non-partisan nature of the Municipalities &/or companies they represent.
In my view, professional athletes should be held to THAT same standard. Off duty, or in their personal lives, they can champion any cause they wish. On the field, they're paid to work...like the rest of us.
HOWEVER, the NFL, which has fined Marshon Lynch for wearing a non-NFL approved cap during Super Bowl week interviews a few years back, banned flag decals and 9/11 decals, etc seems to have no problem with these workplace protests, so fans SHOULD BE mad at the NFL primarily.
It's also untrue, as some have suggested, that filing a complaint against a criminal act (ie. harassment, etc) in the workplace, is "the same as" protesting a social issue.
No, they're two very different things.
A company has a right to demand its workers represent it in the exact way that they want, INCLUDING refraining from getting into political/religious dialogue with clients.
The 1st Amendment protects us from government sanction, but companies can fire "at will" (which is all who aren't Civil Service protected) employees for ANY reason, or no reason at all.
So a person who fervently believes that age of consent laws are arbitrary and capricious and supports what we call pedophilia, can be fired "merely for verbally, or in writing, standing up for what they believe in."
A company is within their rights NOT to want to be associated with such controversy. They could...and I assure you, most WOULD do the same with a skinhead/KKKer, or a Black Panther, as well.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect people from the legitimate consequences of such views....EXCEPT from government overtly criminalizing such views.
That's all the protections the 1st Amendment gives us.
No comments:
Post a Comment