OMG Politics, I'm over it already Mk III, The Search for Spock

Status
Not open for further replies.
sleewell said:
so hows that nobel peace prize lookin?
Click to expand...
trump-nominated-for-2018-nobel-peace-prize.jpg
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-impact-of-the-nfls-anthem-rule-on-baseball/

This is from Fangraphs, which is obviously baseball focused. But it's also the best written article I've seen on the subject and well worth the read.
Click to expand...
Decent article, but he glosses over the limitations on time, manner, and place restrictions. Such restrictions have to be narrowly tailored and serve a legitimate government purpose. As he notes, the protests are happening on what usually is a form of public property. So the government is involved. Your author says that a restriction on players would be unconstitutional if applied to the public. I would want to argue that because the government is involved in the employment of these athletes, that a new category should be made. Not sure if that would win. But that is what I would want to argue. On time manner place, and restrictions being narrowly tailored:

This term, the Court struck down a particular, highly controversial time-place-manner restriction in Massachusetts, ruling 9–0 in McCullen v. Coakley that a state abortion-clinic buffer-zone law was not narrowly tailored. That buffer-zone law, codified as part of the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act, made it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any “reproductive health care facility,” which the Act defined as “a place, other than within or upon the grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed.” Petitioners, individuals who attempt to engage women approaching Massachusetts abortion clinics in “sidewalk counseling” (which involves offering information about alternatives to abortion and help pursuing those options), claimed that the 35-foot buffer zones displaced them from their previous positions outside the clinics, considerably hampering their counseling efforts. The district court and the First Circuit both ruled the Act to be a reasonable time-place-manner restriction.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained that although the act is not content based and is viewpoint neutral, it is not narrowly tailored because it burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests, which he identified as “maintaining public safety on streets and sidewalks and . . . preserving access to adjacent reproductive healthcare facilities.” The majority identified several other less restrictive means of achieving those goals, such as prohibiting deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances or enforcing existing traffic regulations. Justice Roberts concluded that because of the importance of the First Amendment issues at stake, Massachusetts must show that such alternative measures that burden substantially less speech would fail to achieve the government’s interests, not simply that the chosen route is easier.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/c..._highlights/first_amendment_freedom_of_speech

If a quasi public element was found to impact these players, I would be interested in seeing what the government interest is in restricting the speech. Seems like only business interests to me. Again, I argue that if a national sports franchise is going to take government money to support its business, it needs to play by the governments' rules on speech. But, I can point to no case saying that right now.

So yeah, good article, but want to make sure folks understand TMP restrictions are not unlimited or unfettered.

Also, I am interested in the collective bargaining aspects, seeing as apparently the players' association was not consulted.
 
it was basically john bolton who killed the summit and it was pretty obvious he wanted that from the beginning. picking has beens like him and rudy g from the fox news b team is working out great!!!
 
sleewell said:
it was basically john bolton who killed the summit and it was pretty obvious he wanted that from the beginning. picking has beens like him and rudy g from the fox news b team is working out great!!!
Click to expand...
sure is. they're keeping everyone off balance and shouting at each other.
modus operandi.
 
I keep seeing these headlines this morning and I'm wondering if Donald is busting it on North Korea's face or just in their DMZ.

Screen Shot 2018-05-24 at 10.01.04 AM.png
 
Tiltsta said:
Thank goodness the US government is helping ZTE stay in the US phone business. I wonder if the next gen ZTE myPhone X will auto-steal your credit card info. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
I was really close to posting this in the political thread. Actually I might just move it there anyway because this is pretty much the gist of the story.
 
Devil is Dill said:
Since we're minting coins for fictional events, I proposed the following:

George Washington and Gandhi playing checkers
Einstein and Eisenhower battling Cthulhu ​
Julius Caesar and Stevie Wonder waving their dicks around like they just don't care
Click to expand...
I propose the Elvis, Michael Jackson Rap Battle.

 
mongooz said:
can't play at work. blocked. :shrug:
Click to expand...
stephen-stucker_400x400.jpg



Also:

How the Pentagon paid for NFL displays of patriotism
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/pentagon-paid-nfl-displays-patriotism/

“Until 2009, no NFL player stood for the national anthem because players actually stayed in the locker room as the anthem played,” ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith explained in 2016. “The players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic. The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League $5.4 million between 2011 and 2014, and the National Guard $6.7 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage onfield patriotic ceremonies as part of military-recruitment budget line items.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top