NFL

Bill Would Require NFL Team to Refund Snowflake Fans Offended by National Anthem Protests

If fans of the Indianapolis Colts are going to be offended by something, it should be their team's on-field performance this season.

|

TJ Root/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

When Indiana State Rep. Milo Smith left the Indianapolis Colts' Sept. 24 game, he felt triggered.

Not because his Colts played terribly, although they did a lot of that in a year they won only four games (including the one Rep. Smith attended) and finished dead last in their division. No, it was because Smith had personally witnessed a handful of the Colts' players take a knee during the national anthem.

Smith (R-Columbus) was so offended he introduced a bill last week that would require the Indianapolis Colts to offer refunds to fans who purchase tickets if those fans are also offended by players kneeling for the national anthem.

"To me when they take a knee during the national anthem, it's not respecting the national anthem or our country," Smith told the Indy Star. "I'm pretty patriotic, and it didn't sit right with me."

A gross abuse of legislative office? A misguided attempt to impose government force on a private transaction? A potential violation of the U.S. Constitution? Smith's proposal is all three.

"His proposed law is an absurd assault on the First Amendment because it tackles, if you will, political speech of the players by exerting economic pressure on their employer, the Indianapolis Colts," says Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana. "The First Amendment protects each of us from government controlling what we say, and it certainly protects businesses and their employees from government regulation that seeks to discourage speech based on its content."

Smith is, of course, free to express his disagreement with the players' decision to kneel for the anthem. He's completely free to voice those opinions to newspapers like the Indy Star or to post on social media—like President Donald Trump has done, often, throughout the current football season. He's also free to stop buying tickets to Colts' games, stop watching National Football League games on TV, and to request a refund from the team for the game he attended in September (good luck with that last one).

Being a member of the state legislature does not give Smith the right to legislate against every little thing that offends him. It's no better than would-be senator Roy Moore arguing that it's illegal to kneel during the anthem. It's no better than the suggestion, made by Trump in September, that NFL teams should fire players who protest the anthem.

Those protests, by the way, started as a way to make a point about police brutality against blacks—something that's been largely forgotten as the protests and reactions to them were subsumed by political tribalism once Trump got involved.

Conservative snowflakes who turn to government as a means of solving their problems, whether in the Indiana statehouse or the White House, will end up like the Colts did this season—big, big losers.

NEXT: 'Food Police' Thriving Under Alleged Deregulator Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is a thorny issue, what with free speech vs. employee regs etc. I think though it will be resolved through economics rather than through deep thought political/civil discourse.

    NFL ratings/viewership/attendance down 10% this year-that’s what will make the Comish take definitive action.

    1. BTW it kind of goes without saying that this is a foolish, attention seeking proposal by a douche bag

    2. Nothing thorny about it at all. He knew these kneelings were going on, and he could have stayed away. If this was the first kneeling for the Colts, he could have asked for a refund, and might have even gotten one, just to keep him quiet. If he had a season ticket, well, go ahead and ask fro a refund.

      What if someone bought a ticket and discovered the view was worse than he expected, or the wind swirls (hello Candlestick!) worse, or the sun never hit his seat, or he was to near the end and got tired of passing food down the row and cash back, or any number of things were not to his liking? Ask for a refund. Might get it, might not.

      But legislation? What an entitled snowflake! In other words, fuck off, slaver, grow up, deal with it personally, not with the weight of government and the ultimate threat of death for disobedience.

      1. To expand upon this …. the world is full of expectations and disappointments. See a movie, turns out to be a turd. Listen to a radio station, hate half the songs. Buy a short, discover it’s too tight around the armpits. Buy an ice cream cone, find the salted caramel is too salty. Buy a car, find the trunk hasn’t got those little hooks for shopping bags. Buy a house, discover the door knobs annoy you and end up replacing them.

        Most people just move on. In exceptional cases, the seller might take returns or give refunds, but most likely not. That’s just life. Unless there’s out and out fraud involved, you’re on your own. Just deal with it.

        This legislator is an entitled snowflake. He typifies everything that is wrong with government, because it attracts power-mad idiots like this. This is a classic outcome of having artificial unearned authority from a coercive monopoly government, a classic illustration of that old aphorism about power and corruption. You wonder where power-mad corrupt Senators and Governors and Presidents come from? Here’s how they start.

        1. So you’re saying you’re an idiot.

          Didn’t need that wallotext for that.

        2. Buy a short, discover it’s too tight around the armpits.

          I think I see your problem.

      2. “But legislation? What an entitled snowflake! ”

        A legislator legislates. That’s part of their job. They can be voted out of office if the slaves disapprove, at least in theory.

        1. I *snort* in the general direction of legislative theory, elections, and majority rule. Even if majority rule were a sane way of redistributing stolen taxes, as soon as there are two unrelated issues at stake, you have four choices; 25% of the voters will be entirely satisfied, 25% will be entirely pissed off, and half will be half satisfied, half pissed off. Extend that to 10 unrelated issues and you have .1% entirely happy, .1% entirely pissed off, and everybody else in varying combinations of happy / pissed off. Extend that to the millions of government decisions we have nowadays, and you are practically guaranteed that everybody is pissed off about most of them.

          1. “I *snort* ”

            Overly verbose? Incredibly stupid?

            Looks like we found the Hihn puppetteer

            1. An euphemistic reference to a scene in a Monty Python movie mystics are forbidden to watch.

        2. But he has no right to pass the legislation and the Colts have every right to disregard it

          1. “But he has no right to pass the legislation …”

            Surely, being a legislator, he has the right to pass some legislation. Question is what makes this anti-knee bending legislation so out of bounds.

            1. Even if he could get enough (a huge if – the first line of defense against crackpot legislation is most of it dying it committee), the courts would very likely strike it down.

              Not trying to be snide, but that’s the basis of “3 branches” of government. Legislators don’t get to do anything they want as long as they were elected.

              1. Clarifications: legislators don’t get to do anything they want just because they were elected

              2. “Not trying to be snide, but that’s the basis of “3 branches” of government. Legislators don’t get to do anything they want as long as they were elected.”

                A court can overturn legislation, though I figure on it taking years, even years and years while a case works its way up the system. Isn’t it the case that all this time, and until they are struck down, the laws in question stand?

                1. I don’t know enough about the specifics to answer. The court struck down Trump’s executive orders banning travelers from certain countries with a quickness. I also have a vague memory of implementation being delayed when court cases are pending.

                2. You are seriously trying to say that the legislature can make any law it wants, for example – slavery – and that’s completely within their remit so the executive Branch must now enforce it and we have to hope that either they get voted out of office before making the law or that the Judicial comes in and saves the day?

                  That the legislature can throw shit at the wall all day long just to see what sticks? That settled law – settled *constitutional issues* – are irrelevant? Let the courts rule on it over and over?

                  Even taking this particular law by itself – the issue is already settled. The state legislature can’t do this because its a violation of the 1st Amendment. This is already settled law. Its already *long* settled law.

                3. A court can overturn legislation, though I figure on it taking years, even years and years while a case works its way up the system. Isn’t it the case that all this time, and until they are struck down, the laws in question stand?
                  The court would most likely place an injunction against enforcing the law pending the completion of the case.

            2. What “makes this anti-knee bending legislation so out of bounds” is:

              a) it’s government meddling in free markets
              b) it’s done by a Republican who probably claims to support free markets
              c) it’s contrary to freedom of contract
              d) it’s allowing people to litigate merely because they’re offended by someone as opposed to actually harmed by them
              e) it’s a politician using government to force others to behave as he chooses, when he should have chosen to not buy a ticket (the fool).

              And frankly, while legislators will legislate, they aren’t supposed to enact laws that restrict our freedoms or violate the Constitution which is exactly what his legislation does (freedom to contract, freedom of speech).

              And I am also offended by the kneelers. They should protest on their own time and dime and not interrupt the entertainment people paid for.

              1. They should protest on their own time and dime and not interrupt the entertainment people paid for.

                I would like to point out that they absolutely are not interrupting the entertainment people paid for. I don’t really see how you could think they were.

                During the National Anthem they simply choose to no participate. That’s it. They aren’t stopping anyone else from participating nor are they disrupting the event. Any disruption caused is coming *solely* from those people of the ‘you’re either with us or the enemy’ disposition where if you don’t participate in the same social signalling rituals as they will then freak the fuck out about it as if its a personal insult.

              2. a thru e.
                Something about horses and barn doors.

              3. Not that I disagree with you (MoreFreedom), but going back to the original question, what makes this anti-knee bending legislation so out of bounds? I agree with your five points. But, that just makes it the same standard level of crap as most legislation. Item b differentiates it from about half of the legislation (the other half being that it was done by a democrat under some other false pretense).

                Yeah, it’s f’ed up. It’s also par for the course.

        3. Meantime I suggest a rider to the bill requiring ALL FOUR VERSES of the original anthem blare out the loudspeakers. The “other” Milo could then do a short skit explaining the color of freemen (as opposed to the freedmen transubstantiated out of property much later). Indeed the Lord Dunmore Emancipation Proclamation could also be required, for “hireling and slave” doubtless alludes to the Hessians and those “properties” who took up arms for King and Country against Patrick Henry, G. Washington and other terrorists, and were freed and issued firearms in recognition of their patriotism.

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    4. As an aside, I object to the business of calling fans “snowflakes” – those would be the players who are kneeling and have chosen to become useful idiots. In fact, I reject this wilful deflection/distraction by the author completely. The NFL is not college, it is an entertainment business, and they do not own the field they play on. I’m gobsmacked that these kneelers can’t see how they are being used – this is a rough extension of agitprop the AG fostered in Ferguson with his threats against the police department that flew in the face of facts: roughly 80% of “protesters” were bussed in from out of town, and in many cases paid for their so called services [as professional agitators].
      I would remind people that it was the left in need of a shot of thorazine after the 2016 election results – regular americans did not have a collective cow for losing in 2012, so who’s kidding who? Boehm had a decent article going [agree or disagree] until his last paragaph, where he sided with the latest deflection tactic of dnc talking points to rid themselves of a well deserved ‘snowflake’ image. Frankly it’s disappointing – Reason has been an outpost for libertarian thought for a long time, and I see a cancer growing within its walls. Tearing down common sense instead of spotlighting rogue police officers is a massive disservice to humanity, and a step towards anarchy: when language is the casualty, the rule of law falls next.

      1. He did don’t call “fans” snowflakes. Your lame, over-extended argument isn’t based on what was actually stated, or towards whom.

        1. “Bill Would Require NFL Team to Refund Snowflake Fans “

          1. Bill would require NFL Team to Refund Black Cats… Which is not the same is saying cats are black. It’s not my job to explain English context to you though.

          2. The author called the GOP legislator the snowflake, IMHO because he’s the one calling for government to force the NFL to offer refunds (including to him). And that would include any other legislator voting for such a bill.

            It’s just another example of a big government statist, that wants government to allow the offended to use government to actually harm those who’ve merely offended others. Liberals, progressives and social conservatives all believe government should harm/punish people who merely offend others, as opposed to actually harming them. Thankfully libertarians are opposed to government having such power.

      2. I doubt most most libertarians would have a problem moving closer to anarchy.

        1. There’s little more archaic then some people using psudo-religious decrees backed by theft and violence to force others to cater to thier snowflake sensibilities.

        2. You’d be surprised.

      3. Snowflakes have been those sniveling SJW warriors who are offended by every little utterance or gesture and are perfectly willing to use the state where possible to assuage the pain done to their fragile psyches. The behavior of these socially conservative morons is functionally identical making them fair game for the label. It shouldn’t be a shock that a libertarian publication rejects the legitimacy of a government authority dictating the terms of private consensual relationships.

        I have to wonder. Would supporting a heavy handed regulation designed to coerce private organizations into certain policies be more libertarian in your world? Also what color is the sky there?

      4. Leftists and leftist sympathizers (which includes most Reason writers these days) are adamant to turn the “snowflake” epithet around to use against conservatives. As if there was some comparison between choosing not to patronize a business that insults you, and the violent disruption and coercive speech restrictions that the left creates in response to a vast, ever-expanding swath of discourse that offends them.

    5. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    6. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    7. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. “Trump Exonerates Assange: “He’s Free To Come To America””
    http://yournewswire.com/trump-…..e-america/

    I certainly hope this is true, but it shows up only on some ‘marginal’ news outlets.

    1. Fake news to draw him out. Probably Russian.

  3. Going forward, anyone who buys a ticket knows that there could be a political protest at an NFL game. However, anyone who bought season tickets for this past season may have been caught by surprise. If someone sells you something and then delivers something else, that’s fraud and you should be entitled to a refund. People who bought season tickets this year had no reason to believe they were paying to see a political protest. They should be entitled to a refund. Anyone who buys a ticket next year should not get a refund.

    1. How is this fraud? No one can predict what will happen during a game. If some player had quit the team in disgust during the third quarter, is that fraud? If the scoreboard had blitzed out during the game, would you call that fraud? If the guy two runs down had been cheering on the other team, is that fraud?

      Things happen. Not ever one of them is fraud.

      1. Personally, I’m offended by the endzone displays – some egomaniac who gets paid millions of dollars to catch a football wants to celebrate like he’s done something spectacular by catching a football? Now if *I* caught a pass for a TD in an NFL game, you bet your ass that’d be something so spectacularly improbable it’d be worth the craziest of celebrations, but not when that’s your very job description.

      2. I agree Scarecrow. What this is, are paid entertainers inserting their politics into entertainment when people didn’t expect it. The right response (if one is offended which I am), is to quit supporting them by buying any more tickets or watching/listening to the games. And of course, one can protest, via picketing outside the game or via other means. But I’d advise not doing it while working.

        1. But I’d advise not doing it while working.

          Unless protesting *is* your job.

    2. Funny, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say “I’m going to see the patriotic display from a football team that precedes a football game”. I have heard “I’m going to see a football game” a lot though.

  4. Since Boehm freely admits he’s in favor of the protests he hardly seems the one to be telling people that it’s unlibertarian to seek redress via the government over a contractual dispute.

    1. Much less resorting to calling them names.

    2. Right, so by that logic, anyone who has an opinion must be barred from voicing that opinion.

      Shut up, slaver.

      1. So you’re saying Thomas has no right to HIS opinion? If you’re looking for the slaver, grab a mirror.

        1. I’m saying that Thomas, by Thomas’s definition, is a hypocrite.

          I may as well add that you don’t read so good.

          1. Better than you I suspect.

          2. “don’t read so good”

            Irony, thy name is Scarecrow.

            And, to be clear, what I’m saying is that, by your own words, you are an idiot.

        2. Scarecrow is an idiot. He routinely proves it, but we’re libertarians so we can’t stop him, nor should we want to.

          The idea of telling someone with an opinion to shut up is in fact, far worse than having them share it and debating it with them.

          You saw which Scarecrow prefers.

          1. Hey! A fan! Thanks, maybe I should start a club and collect membership fees.

          2. The only response I’ve seen you give to Scarecrow is variations on “what a moron.” Respond properly or get lost.

          3. Ascendency, you might be Fauxbertarian, at best.
            You probably would feel better with the glib crowd who finally fucked off after nearly ruining this site with their whining about Trump being treated like a trump.

        3. If saying “shut up slaver” makes one a “slaver”, Libertarians have so many more problems then whether or not it’s a good idea for the government to coerce an employer into punishing their employees.

      2. Hey, far be it from me to tell you it’s foolish to criticize me over things I never said. Especially since you already went and did so.

        1. Sorry my point was too subtle for your minute Manichean mind.

  5. Trump-Flakes, Snow-Flakes whatever. The Con Man is triggered because the free world knows he is full of shit.

    1. An you too — who the hell asked for your non-opinion?

      Fuck off, slaver, I’m on a roll this morning. Just fuck off for fucking off’s sake.

      1. Fuck you. This entire hate-on-the-NFL movement led by Trump is ridiculous. Idiot conservatives are piling on out of TEAM! loyalty. Fuck all teams – I am a free agent.

        1. Hate on the NFL?!? It’s hate on PB, jackass. You earned it the old-fashioned way.

        2. PB, you and Tony should really enter into a suicide pact. Both of you are a drag on the human race, and no one could ever love either of you. Go share some Drano with him. Maybe you’ll get lucky and he will plow your ass first.

          1. Why do you conservatives hate individualists?

            1. “Why do you conservatives hate individualists?”

              Why do you lefty assholes post nothing but lies?

            2. This isn’t about individualism. Progressive drone.

      2. “who the hell asked for your non-opinion?”

        Reaaon did you stupid fuck.

    2. You getting paid for this bilge, or did you drink the bongwater?

  6. BUT HILLARY WOULD HAVE MANDATED TAKING A KNEE DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM!!!!

    1. Only if she gets paid.

      1. Or laid.

  7. My bad demons kind of delight in the government going after the NFL, since the NFL is so constantly involved in using the government to enrich themselves.

    Of course, intellectually I’m completely against the government getting involved. I’m just going to enjoy the notion of the alternative a little bit more than I should…

    1. First comment today I agree with. It’s fun watching the cronies get slapped down by the government they thought they had bought. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a laugh.

      1. It’s fun watching the cronies get slapped down by the government they thought they had bought.

        Karma, she’s a harsh mistress.

  8. The snowflake on the left is now the snowflake on the right. Their tears have all grown saltier overnight.

    1. +1 The Who

  9. But I do like the idea of refunds.

    One thing I admired about Ricky Williams was his willingness to sign an incentive-heavy contract (not necessarily a smart move but a gutsy one) and I’d like to see more players do that. A relatively low base salary and so much per yard, catch, TD, tackle, interception, sack, etc. And teams should be willing to do the same – for every loss ticket and concession prices get cut 10%, let’s say. The Browns could get a packed stadium around week 12 when they have to start paying people to come to the games.

    1. Jimmy Haslam doesn’t have enough money to get me to attend a Browns game. And I’m a fan!

  10. Donald Trump in gossipy new book: “Why can’t Medicare simply cover everybody?”

    1. “No one in the country, or on earth, has given less thought to health insurance than Donald,” former Fox News leader Roger Ailes reportedly said. When you remember that Trump has talked about health insurance as if it works like life insurance, that also isn’t so hard to believe.

    2. To be fair, it’s not like Trump’s the only one with that opinion, starting with Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi. They seriously think that since Medicare/Medicaid works tolerably well we should just expand it to cover everybody with no understanding that it works tolerably well because everybody pays into it and only a few collect out of it. Medicare/Medicaid for all Americans would work pretty well as long as we can get the Chinese to institute a payroll tax on all their workers to cover the cost with the understanding that no Chinese will ever be eligible to collect a cent from it. And keep in mind that The World’s Most Stable Genius Businessman can get the math on Medicaid/Medicare to work out because the final line on his equations is always “If the sum is positive, stick it in your pocket; if the sum is negative, skim a management fee off the top and stick some other loser with the bill.”

      1. The people paying into it are also paying for their own expensive private health insurance.

  11. So, both sides of this issue are assholes. No surprise there.

    1. How are the NFL players assholes? They are protesting cops shooting people without cause.

      I understand the many TEAM RED! assholes who post here taking the side of overzealous cops but no libertarian should.

      1. Exactly. The United States is a white supremacist dystopia in which racist cops shoot black bodies even when they are in the “hands up, don’t shoot” pose. Professional athletic events are the ideal venue for commenting on this unacceptable situation.

        I only wish the Houston Astros would reconsider their upcoming White House visit. It seems MLB players are not as woke as NFL players, unfortunately.

        1. The national anthem is not an “athletic event”, you moron.

          1. Mr. Buttplug, I’m trying to agree with you here. I despise racist cops and Drumpf just as much as you do.

            And yes, the national anthem before an NFL game is, in fact, part of an “athletic event.”

          2. If you project from the diaphragm, it can be quite a workout.

        2. Are non-racist cops who shoot everyone (in correct racial proportions) OK with you?

          1. As long as everyone goes to the Gulag, it’s a-ok!

      2. PB shows his ignorance again. The legislation targets the TEAM, as in OWNERS, not the players.

        1. TEAM RED! assholes are targeting the players, idiot.

          1. This article isn’t about the players, it’s about a legislator targeting teams.

            Fuck off, illiterate slaver.

            1. A team is a collection of players. You are really naive if you deny that the intent of the legislation is to stop the players from protesting.

              1. And you are incredibly naive if you don’t think the ultimate goal of ALL legislation is to show off one’s authoritarian powers over the plebes.

      3. “How are the NFL players assholes? ”

        They co-opted the momentum of a police accountability movement and turned it into a racist shitshow.

        1. Winner

  12. This dude’s patriotism must be pretty shallow if it is threatened by a few knuckleheads taking a knee during the national anthem.

    1. EXACTLY. It’s a piece of cloth and a song. Soldiers didn’t die for the sake of a cloth and a song. They died for the sake of higher ideals like freedom and liberty.

  13. Boring. Keep commenting on the food regs entry.

    1. & the italics are free there!

  14. “A gross abuse of legislative office? A misguided attempt to impose government force on a private transaction? A potential violation of the U.S. Constitution? Smith’s proposal is all three.

    I don’t know that it’s an abuse of legislative office. Because I disagree with something doesn’t make it illegal.

    A misguided attempt to impose government force?

    I’ll buy that, but does anyone know if the Colts have refused to refund tickets because of this? Seems like the ticket buyers might have a fraud or false advertising claim, and isn’t legislating the laws around that a perfectly legitimate activity for a legislator.

    A potential violation of the Constitution?

    We’re not talking about freedom of speech here, right? You’re saying this is a potential violation of association rights?

    A violation of property rights–that the government can’t force a team to give money back to angry ticket buyers without a trial, due process, and all that?

    1. Try reading the article…
      “His proposed law is an absurd assault on the First Amendment because it tackles, if you will, political speech of the players by exerting economic pressure on their employer, the Indianapolis Colts,” says Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana. “The First Amendment protects each of us from government controlling what we say, and it certainly protects businesses and their employees from government regulation that seeks to discourage speech based on its content.”

      1. “His proposed law is an absurd assault on the First Amendment because it tackles, if you will, political speech of the players by exerting economic pressure on their employer, the Indianapolis Colts,” says Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana.

        Yeah, that’s horseshit.

        Exerting economic pressure on an employer because you don’t like what they’re doing is the libertarian way.

        If you don’t like what they’re doing, don’t buy their products, ask for your money back, etc., etc.

        The idea that asking for your money back is a free speech violation because it exerts economic pressure on employers is fucking retarded.

        It’s entertainment.

        P.S. Complaining to the restaurant manager because the waitress was rude isn’t a First Amendment violation either. Telling him you’re never coming back because of it, never coming back because of it, or asking for your money back isn’t a First Amendment violation either.

        Suddenly forced association is the only alternative to free speech?

        Pure. Horseshit.

        1. “Exerting economic pressure on an employer because you don’t like what they’re doing is the libertarian way.”
          Um sure, when that pressure comes from volentary transactions, not forcibly via law.

          “If you don’t like what they’re doing, don’t buy their products, ask for your money back.”
          ASK, being the keyword. I can ask a restaurant to refund my meal for X reason, and it’s at the discretion of the restaurant to oblige with my request, and for what amount. If I’m not happy with it’s response, I’m free to leave, and never dine there again; voluntary economic pressure.
          As it stands, nothing is preventing you or any other from ASKING for a refund on your football tickets right now, for any reason you feel. Ask all you want! But of course, this issue isn’t actually about your right to ASK. This law is attempting to make it MANDATORY (a demand which must be met, else face the force of law), specifically in reference to your mere dissatisfaction over a player’s specific expression.

          It seems you’re ignoring the LAW part of this statement by Jane Henegar. And indeed, she is right. The proposed LAW is absurd, and is an assault on political speech of the players by FORCING economic pressure; no longer a choice for the business, and hence a forcibly direct consequence of player’s speech via Gov’t law.

          No horseshit, just a reasonable analysis.

          1. “Um sure, when that pressure comes from volentary transactions, not forcibly via law.”

            Exactly so we’re not talking about First Amendment free speech rights–at all.

            This has nothing to do with free speech. This is about forced association and a violation of property rights–by the government.

            The government shouldn’t be able to punish you for using foul language, but your employer should be free to fire you for offending a customer–even if you did it by accident!

            Employers are not the government, and the distinction between them is clear from the first words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law . . .” It doesn’t address anything about how employees should be free from pressure by their employers not to offend customers–and anybody who claims this is a First Amendment case on that basis is full of horseshit.

          2. “It seems you’re ignoring the LAW part of this statement by Jane Henegar. And indeed, she is right.

            The proposed law may be wrong from a libertarian and/or constitutional perspective, but her argument against it is anti-libertarian and unconstitutional horseshit.

            Just because you oppose this proposed law doesn’t mean you have to defend every anti-libertarian argument anyone makes up to oppose it.

            This woman apparently wants to tell us that the First Amendment protects employees from the negativeconsequences of their speech? That’s horseshit.

            The Second Amendment doesn’t protect you from the negative consequences of misusing your gun, and the First Amendment doesn’t protect you from the negative consequences of misusing your speech. In fact, if you violate someone’s rights with your speech, for instance, through violent threats, fraud, robbing a bank with a written bomb threat, etc, you can be criminally prosecuted–just like you can be prosecuted if you violate someone’s rights with a gun.

          3. There isn’t anything in the First Amendment that protects people from suffering the consequences of their speech. It only prohibits the government from violating your right to speak as you please–unless the law you’re convicted on is in harmony with the First Amendment, unless your Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights were respected and so on. That has nothing to do with your employer. If you don’t want your employer to fire you for angering his customers with your speech, then avoid angering his customers with your speech.

            P.S. You realize we’re talking about a proposed law, right?

            1. “There isn’t anything in the First Amendment that protects people from suffering the consequences of their speech.”
              Of course there is. It directly protects people from Gov’t imposed consequence. That’s the whole point of it.

              Anyway, it seems you’ve missed the argument I made previously. It IS a first amendment issue, as a Gov’t LAW requiring reimbursement would directly put pressure on businesses to silence thier employees for said speech. Either you’re purposely ignorant on this truth, or aren’t clever enough to figure that out.

  15. I’d add a fourth thing this is–it’s an “attempt”, a “potential” violation, it’s speculative–it’s not a law.

    It’s important not to conflate what some state legislator in Indiana is talking about with actually violating someone’s constitutional rights. Otherwise, we’re just like those crazy people who can’t tell the difference between what Trump does and what Trump tweets. I assure you, what politicians actually do is far more important than what they say, and those of us who can’t see any meaningful difference between the two should go see someone about a prescription for anti-anxiety medication.

    1. You nailed it. Who gives a shit about what Trump tweets as opposed to his getting things done like tax reform, or deregulation.

    2. Virtue Signaling by Legislation

      He knows it’s going nowhere as legislation
      He just wants to signal to voters

  16. This refund bill is of course comically stupid, ill-advised, and should be tossed in the trash can, along with its sponsor.

    I’d say it goes to show that this entire kneeling business is the most incompetent civil rights movement ever. I am 100% sympathetic to the issue of police brutality against blacks, yet as the article notes, that issue is now lost in the weeds.

    Instead of affirming our constitutional rights and appealing that we live up to those ideals, these guys put out a message of “America sucks, has always sucked, and always will suck”. It is a display of narcissism that has exactly zero to do with making practical progress. Instead of introspection based on common ground, it sparks defensiveness and we ending up arguing side topics.

    Thank god these morons weren’t around in 1963.

    1. “I’d say it goes to show that this entire kneeling business is the most incompetent civil rights movement ever.”

      It’s not that bad. It’s been simmering for well over a year now, and Reason and other media outlets still cover it in all its aspects. It doesn’t compare to 1963’s white folks watching their TVs dumbfounded as peaceful black protestors have police dogs sicced on them, but these are gentler, more sensitive times.

      My impression is that America’s blacks aren’t as likely to revere the constitution as white folks are. Just for the fact that the slave holding constitution writers were of no help to America’s blacks, for one. I also don’t think black Americans recognize this ‘common ground’ you speak of.

      1. Oh, its that bad. Its amazing to realize the president was on the activist’s side back in 1963.

        Today, BLM in general, and the kneelers specifically, have salted the earth against widespread support. Their microphone grabbing antics, racial animus, and wacky demands (reparations !) are abhorrent. If there is ever any improvement in police violence, it will be in spite of, not because of, these folks.

        Your statements about black people sound like boilerplate lefty stereotypes. Maybe they are true for black people unfortunate enough to go to Berkeley.

        For what its worth, I love this video, which made the rounds a while back. THIS is how its done.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAvMkjxHyM

        1. “Their microphone grabbing antics, racial animus, and wacky demands (reparations !) are abhorrent.”

          The players are not hurting anyone and nobody is forced to watch them as they kneel. I really don’t see how you can object so vehemently to their actions. I think that black and white America are in essence two different nations and the common ground you seek is difficult to find. I doubt for example that blacks see this as a free speech issue.

          1. You are missing the point. They are going out of their way to insult and piss off they very people whose support they need, specifically white people. It’s not like they need to convince black people about the issue.

            You can pound on the table all day long that those people shouldn’t be pissed, but your opinion on it is quite irrelavent. They are pissed. Know your audience.

            As far as the two different nations stuff, sorry but that’s bunk. Read more Sowell, and less Coates. In fact, no Coates at all is best.

            1. “As far as the two different nations stuff,”

              One nation, the white one as you point out, is pissed off by the kneeling. The other nation, the black one, presumably isn’t. If you’re not willing to concede that American black culture or nation is distinct from white culture, you’re not going to find this common ground you’re looking for. If white people are pissed, so be it. We’ll be fine as long as they follow the football players’ lead and don’t hurt anybody.

              “In fact, no Coates at all is best.”

              I don’t know Coates. My recollection of sociolinguistics tells me though that black Americans have distinctive speech patterns that mark them out from the broader American population as an ethnic group or nation, call it what you will. It’s worth pointing out that Barack Obama apparently slipped into a broader black dialect when addressing predominantly black audiences.

              1. You seem determined to simply not get the point.

                In any case, when you say “white people are pissed,so be it”, you appear to concede the kneeling is just a narcissistic display with no intention of pursuading people or gaining support. On that we agree, and mission accomplished.

                Coates is Ta Nehsi Coates. Nothing to do with linguistics.

      2. We all have to be loyal to our assigned identity group.

  17. Once again, this is a misapplication of the snowflake pejorative. Two things are required, not just the melting under the heat of opposing views but also the overestimation of ones on preciousness. I don’t see the latter here. You need to come up with another term.

    1. Boehm is just being a little bitch.

    2. Reason seems to have an urge to overcompensate the right’s usage of the word. They try to find anything they can to use the term against them while diluting any scenario where it could be against the left with “to be sures”.

      1. Spot on observation.

      2. Entirely expected given their recent appearance in a list of top ‘ conservative ‘ websites.

        Freaked them out, it did.

    3. You don’t see the latter here?

      I think it’s important not to let the right get away with monumental hypocrisy, which it does often, usually with the help of mind-numbing applications of little slogans and insults.

      This guy is being a triggered snowflake, and the fact of the matter is it’s worse than anything liberals do because he’s not even speaking out for marginalized people. He’s offended that the negroes are expressing independent thought rather than obeying him and getting back to the field, literally.

      1. I do not see the “I’m special” element here.

        1. Snowflakehood is about fragility. Republicans already think they’re special. They all read Atlas Shrugged or had someone explain it to them.

          1. In my mind, they need to individually think they’re special. Not as a group. That would be a snowman or snow pile.

          2. Tony, they believe themselves to be better than progressives. Which is true. For example, everyone is YOUR better., and every non-progressive is better than progressives.

            Since you are so without value, you should really go drink that Drano.

            1. What a terribly pleasant human being you are.

              1. I’m awesome. It’s just that you are a lying, conniving marxist slaver piece of shit. Everyone here despises you for that. You make the world a worse place to live.

    4. Their delight in throwing the label back in the Right’s face is a bit too obvious sometimes.

      Basically, since the Right’s rhetoric has pretty clearly moved generally ever more in line with our values, and the Left’s steadily away from it (even in a Trump world, the Right has “corrected” somewhat less than feared, and the Left has decidedly determined not to fill the vacuum and take their “antiestablishmentarian” turn at the plate in any meaningful way), Reason has seen this shift, and thinks it gives a special importance to “calling out the Right’s hypocrisy.”

      Which, fair enough. But they do regularly embarrass themselves with their overreach. (This is certainly one of the very, very mildest examples.)

      1. Reason should call out politicians for trying to violate the First Amendment, even if they have (R)s after their names.

        There is plenty of space at the FOX News site if you want to talk about how great Republicans are.

        1. You’re right! I should confine myself to commenting on sites that are aligned with my personal opinions.

          What kind of sick, loser fuck spends his days on a site whose ideology does not align with his own, surrounded by people who are not only ideologically opposed but actively loathe him and wish he’d go away, making no effort to frame his argument in a way that might appeal to the other conversant on his own terms like a normal person does when trying to persuade, but instead just getting a childish, perverted charge out of insulting and provoking them?

          1. I just want my fellow libertarians to stop constantly jumping to the defense the most embarrassingly stupid political party on earth. What is it? The tax cuts?

            1. Tony, you already are a democrat. They’re pure evil. Marxist thralls. They and you should all commit ritual suicide.

    5. Huh? Dude introduced a law in response to his hurt feelings. How could it possibly fail the second condition?

      1. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I did accidentally type “on” instead of “own” in my second sentence.

        I don’t see a element of uniqueness. To be a snowflake is to both melt when things get hot and to be completely unique in the universe. I person must appear to believe he is so special that he must be accommodated lest he be lost to this world. Here, this seems more like a belief that his patriotism should be everyone’s patriotism. Effectively by law.

        Honestly, I might not respect just a little bit less the “snowflake” found protesting at our nation’s universities if, instead of demanding trigger warnings, he or she asked for a tuition refund when triggered.

  18. I like the way the left has co-opted the use (or abuse) of the moniker “snowflake”

  19. The idiot author would probably be offended if some moron who are supposed to be an entertainer of some sort started badmouthing and event he paid for. I mean you bought season tickets to the event and the douchebag has decided to enter politics into said event. I think it is warranted, you aren’t getting what you payed for..

    1. “the douchebag has decided to enter politics into said event…”

      Whoever decided to play the national anthem at a ball game is a, like, total douchebag.

      1. No, that’s just patriotism. Some people care about things like the constitution and the republic. Especially those that fought for it. Unlike the douchebags kneeling on the job, which is stealing from their employers. Or do you think that priliged athletes somehow get to engage in political protest o their employer’s dime, unlike pretty much everyone else?

        1. These ‘priliged athletes’ can be fired any time if they are thieving from their employers. They can be fired for pretty much any reason or none at all.

          1. No, they can’t. They have a union, and various arbitrations and court options. Go look at the whole issue with Tom Brady’s deflated balls.

            1. If an employee is stealing from his employer, that’s ample grounds for dismissal, union or no union.

        2. They didn’t even start coming out of the locker room for the anthem until 2009 when the Government started paying them to do so.

          1. Personally, I have always thought the idea that it is somehow disgraceful that they charged the DoD to advertise them (a policy they were thus shamed into changing) is the most ridiculous and repugnant notion in this entire affair.

          2. At least hey went coming out just to be unpatriotic and disrespectful.

        3. Oh, it’s fun to pretend people died to force others to stand for a rascist peom that wasn’t even written until 30 years after the founding of the nation. So important it was, it’s a constitutuional amendment… unlike freedom of expression.
          It always amazes me how stupid some people are.

          1. Unpatriotic people like you don’t understand patriotism.

        4. Does the US Constitution promote the lawless murder of unarmed innocent people by the state? I had no idea. What a shitty constitution.

          1. And once again you betray your hatred for the constitution. You should be deported.

        5. Or do you think that priliged athletes somehow get to engage in political protest o their employer’s dime […]

          I think that’s up to the employer. Some will be fine with it. Some won’t. In this case, the employers publicly said they were fine with it.

    2. Alot of players have been seduced by the SJW crowd ensconced within ESPN that are in the process of melting their network down by abandoning their raison d’etre: sports. The playing field does not belong to the players, and until it does they need to draw a permit for protesting just like any average joe. The old magic of the NFL was that it left the world behind when you entered the gates – it was truly neutral territory, and a welcome break from worldly cares. The owners need to find alot of extra spine [and quickly], as they are being tag teamed from all sides including players who don’t understand what was built, and how their behavior risks killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
      Put another way… would we tolerate a broadway show where the actor ditches script and launches into a soapbox rant? That’s an abuse of the audience, and effectively destroys a production – the theatre would be facing scores of refund demands, and should by rights not only bounce the actor out but sue him for damages to put the exclamation point on it for any future fools looking to hijack an entertainment enterprise.

      1. They did that at Hamilton when Pence showed up, and then the show went on, just as the games do, every single time.

        Wouldn’t it be convenient for cops if the protesters could only make their statements the privacy of their own homes. Then you douchebags would probably still call for retribution against them. “They have a brand they’re representing!” or whatever.

        Where’s the safe space for people who actually like freedom?

        1. Yep, those are the only choices they have. Either engage in a childish protest that turns 50%+ of country against you and diverts attention from the actual cause you are trying to further OR only make statements at home.

          Yep, no other way to do it.

          1. Which option has the biggest audience?

            1. I was being sarcastic. They approached this in the worst possible way. You created a false choice.

          2. Oh bullshit. If they wanted to make a positive difference all they have to do is get a bunch of the payers to back some big event to raise awareness of whatever they’re bitching about. On their own time, and not courting anger by pissing on the anthem they could actually get their message out. Instead they act like a bunch of whiny ungrateful traitors. So fuck them.

            1. ^ what I said to Tony.

              1. So you agree with the guy calling for everyone he doesn’t like to be put to death?

      2. Put another way… would we tolerate a broadway show where the actor ditches script and launches into a soapbox rant?

        If we take your comparison as a valid one, that suggests that Broadway audiences are more willing to walk out after being offended and to impose Free Market consequences on someone then Football audiences are.

        It’s only because Football fans aren’t imposing Free Market consequences on the NFL that we’re still hearing about this stuff.

  20. Never mind all that. The idiot owners reinstated Goodell to maintain a steady course for shoal waters & reefs. You know, the guy who couldn’t find it in himself to use the unsportsmanlike conduct rule to deal with the kneeling fools, specifically Kaepernick? It becomes enforceable the moment teams take the field [in uniform] for their practice warm up before game time. Football is dead, and… I will make it a point to go do something else during the superbowl – probably golf, as there are no tv’s to subject me to the ongoing explosion of idiocy within the NFL. Hope it’s not contagious… anybody check with the CDC about all this? I’m worried about our team owners, and the cities who put themselves on the hook by building their stadiums for them. If they go non compos mentis and qualify for conservatorship, the entire game will implode, along with several city budgets that rely on concession stands raping customers with $10 beers etc.

    1. “Football is dead,…”

      You never heard of Canadian or Australian football? They don’t play the national anthem during the game or before or after it. They play, like, a totally different song.

      “the entire game will implode, along with several city budgets that rely on concession stands raping customers with $10 beers etc.”

      Have you tried curling? It’s seasonally appropriate and though the players’ knees can get close to touching the floor, even while no music is playing, it’s the only sport I know of where the audience AND the players can enjoy a lager while they play.

      1. “You never heard of Canadian or Australian football?”

        No, and neither has anyone else.

        I kind of love that you included Canadian Football, a league that only exists to mine the NFL’s castoffs. Which, of course, wouldn’t exist without the NFL.

        Why didn’t you just choose Soccer if you wanted to be intentionally obtuse and play that stupid fucking game where you pretend to be so stupid that you don’t readily understand the in an article on the NFL, the subject is the NFL? It is called football everywhere but the US and isn’t going anywhere.

        1. “No, and neither has anyone else.”

          Ok how about that sport played in bars with the little wooden men that can be twisted back and forth on handles and used to score ‘goals’ by knocking a little ball into slots at either end of the table. Not sure what it’s called, but the little wooded men cannot flex their knees, which are also wood, no matter what kind of music is playing in the background, even our most sacred tunes. This sounds like an excellent alternative.

          1. Foosball was one of the better bar games back in the 70s.

  21. So it appears Eric neither understands nor respects the concept of patriotism. He clearly can’t fathom that seeing privileged athlete millionaires taking their work time to make a show of disrespecting the flag and the anthem might bother a lot of people. Calling them ‘snowflakes’.

    What an asshole.

    1. Eric’s too polite to call them assholes.

    2. Ah, right. Patiotism is about standing for songs, and waiving peices of colored cloth! It’s not about exercising Rights. Silly me. I should have known, cause Standing for a racist poem is a patriotic duty under the Constitution, but freedom of expression is not. Alas, that’s what makes a patiot!

      1. True patriots shut up and do whatever they are told to do.

        1. Clearity, clearity, clearity… Thanks for that. Guess I’ll never be a patriot.

        2. No, PB. That’s what good little comrades like yo duo.

      2. Patriotism is definitely not make a disrespectful show towards national traditions that are valued by people who did things like fight for their country. Although I bet you consider being an asshole to vets is being patriotic too.

  22. What exactly is wrong with this proposed legislation? It is an economic regulation, and as every good progressive knows, if any rational reason for the legislation can be imagined at all, or even hallucinated, the courts must uphold it. Democracy means that any law passed by the peoples’ elected representatives – passed by BOTH HOUSES of the legislature, as Barack Obama would say – must be upheld! Otherwise you are clearly a tool of Big Business.

    Further, it is a matter of national security. Refusing to stand for the national anthem undermines the morale of the military, which makes America more vulnerable to attack.

    Finally, the bill would not punish the players, it punishes the employers, and since when has the ACLU given a shit about employers’ constitutional rights? Surely good progressives like the ACLU (and like Buttplug pretends to be) aren’t calling for a return to the evil Lochner days when we actually let the Constitution get in the way of the Peoples’ Will?

    So what if the proposed law is a bad idea? In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, if the people want to go to hell, it is the courts’ duty to assist them.

    (I hope my sarcasm is obvious)

    1. I used to work in a movie theatre. If a customer was unsatisfied with the performance for any reason, the manager would refund the ticket, provided not more than, like, 20 minutes, had passed. I don’t think it unreasonable that football customers should have the same ability.

      1. Can you differentiate by a voluntary business decision by movie theater owners and mandatory interference from a self-entitled legislator?

        I would not be surprised if some football, baseball, etc team owners do allow refunds within the first few minutes. Maybe there are none, but maybe there are some.

        1. “Can you differentiate by a voluntary business decision by movie theater owners and mandatory interference from a self-entitled legislator?”

          All our laws are about mandatory interference from legislatures. This would be no different.

          1. That laws are about “mandatory” interference (which isn’t actually true), doesn’t negate the point made. I may not like vanilla ice cream, but the fact that laws interfere isn’t some magical justification to therefore interefere with law, in this case enacting law banning vanilla ice cream.

            Our highest of laws also limit what interference legislatures can enact… Which goes something like:
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
            So yes, it would be different.

            1. I pretty much agree with you. Though there are no shortage of laws punishing harmless actions like this one. It’s probably just a matter of a politician wanting to get attention. If they were serious they must have a wide assortment of tools available to pressure the owners on the quiet like. Threats of tax audits are usually enough.

  23. More huge developments in #TrumpRussia!

    From Newsweek ? Will Mueller Charge Ivanka Trump in Russia Investigation in 2018?

    Ivanka didn’t attend the 30 minute meeting in June with Russian lawyers, so she’s been largely left out of the investigation until now. But she did, according to what a person familiar with the exchange told the LA Times, “briefly [speak] with two of the participants, a Russian lawyer and a Russian-born Washington lobbyist.”

    MAGA = Mueller Ain’t Going Away! He’ll definitively expose the Russian conspiracy to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful victory. Then the Democratic Congress can finally impeach.

    1. Know any good recipes for Kasha? I like adding garlic and mushrooms, as well as substituting Hazelnuts for the Walnuts. However, am always looking for a new twist on an old standard.

      1. Great, another libertarian smartass who can’t be bothered to care about the fact that Russia hacked the election. This is the biggest scandal in the history of the planet, and you’d rather discuss your dinner plans.

        1. Ah, right. It’s not big that Americans have hacked elections in hundreds of other countries elections, or the mass murder of almost a million Vietnamese over a false flag, or the mass murder and incarceration of millions in multiple countries via a CIA and FBI controlled drug trade surely doesn’t compete for the biggest scandal in history. Clearly, loosely evidential Russian “hacking” takes the cake, for anyone who has thier head in thier ass.

          1. You realize he us a parody of Trump’s opponents, right?

    2. The Russians just wanted to mess with the election. With the help of Democrats, they succeeded much more than they hoped to. I think they were as sure as most people were that Hillary would win. What the Russians failed to understand is that they didn’t really need to do anything. Just float some rumors and let the natural hysteria on the Left run with it.

  24. Being a member of the state legislature does not give Smith the right to legislate against every little thing that offends him.

    Um, apparently it *does*.

  25. I hope Eric is right. I recall when George Holy war Bush demanded an Amendment to jail or shoot flag-disrespecters and the death sentence for hemp pushers. None of God’s Own Prohibitionists seem to recall any of that. And wasn’t there something about a suppressed stanza in the National Anthem? After all, when it was written the Constitution required the extradition of fugitive “property” (meaning slaves) back to Dixieland. The Fugitive Slave Act made it explicitly “the law” and La Suprema Corte’s Dred Scott decision was based on the literal Word of the Constitution itself–until the 13th Amendment allowed only conscripts to be enslaved 14th Amendment assured individual rights for blacks and women. My wager is the bill will be shitcanned and the idiot drummed out of Congress and forgotten.

    1. Between the Holy War Bushpigs and the Dotards I can’t fathom why so many here still cling to TEAM RED!

      Of course Team Blue sucks too.

    2. What idiot Congressman are you talking about? There are so many, and this story provides no context to suggest any particular one.

    3. …….And more of hanks usual unoriginal gibbering bullshit. What a complete deranged idiot.

  26. Politically Correct collectivists to the left of me, Patriotically Correct collectivists to the right of me. Whatever is a libertarian to do.

    1. You’re telling me you have no sympathy whatsoever for a guy who wants a refund from the Colts?

      1. I have no pity for anyone that watches sportsball, especially if they pay money and waste time going to a game.

  27. Jacksonville has one shitty offense.

  28. Those protests, by the way, started as a way to make a point about police brutality against blacks–something that’s been largely forgotten.

    In what universe is this remotely true? Jesus Christ.

  29. I like the NFL and the fact that snow-flakey conservatives don’t just makes it more appealing.

    Also UGA – you fuckers can win Monday night.

    1. Yeah, the NFL is pretty cool. And it’s encouraging to see so many of its athletes are interested in social justice. However, the league isn’t perfect though. Remember Michael Sam, who almost became the first openly gay player? But then homophobia prevented any teams from making him a starting player. About 10% of humans are gay, so logically 10% of NFL players should be as well. There’s still much progress to be made.

      1. Quotas are shit.

        Don’t you think more punters should be gay? They do lots of high leg kicks I hear.

        1. Wait…are you Chris Kluwe? Everything makes sense now!

      2. I’m not saying that there isn’t bias against homosexuals in the league, but it’s worth pointing out that Sam was not a very good player. But Kaepernick is/was.

        1. Sam was so obviously not NFL material, and so obviously an attention whore that he could not even stand being in a pro league more suited to his talents, that he can’t be compared to a guy who was clearly starting QB material at his peak. But their situations are similar in that Kap’s talent at this point is bubble enough that getting a reputation for baggage or drama is more than enough to sink you below where an NFL team would think it worth their while. Remember, he’s a quarterback. The standards are higher for him. I do think the protests are being taken into consideration, though not inordinately so. When you’re on the bubble like that any little baggage can sink you. I feel worse for some of the kids out of college that are getting counted out out of this or that fear that’s more of a hunch than the front office is willing to admit.

          I would hardly describe him, right now, as “a very good player.”

          1. I didn’t mean that he was a very good player either (the opposite of “not a very good player” is not “a very good player”…). But even if you look at his most recent season, he was clearly deserving of being on a roster. He was reasonably productive last year, despite having no supporting cast. There’s also a bit of a QB shortage right now. Look at the playoff teams right now — the AFC is a mess, with only three starting-caliber QBs out of the six playoff teams. The best team in the NFC a few weeks ago lost their QB and is now saddled with a guy who will be lucky to get that team past the first round, and who is entering the playoffs without an NFL-caliber backup.

            Kaepernick would have been an upgrade over the backup or the starter for about 16 teams this season. How many of them even gave him a workout?

            There’s a precedent for this whole thing too. Michael Vick faced a similar uphill battle (even though he ended up signing with two teams). I don’t think anybody really denied the fact that he was blacklisted for what he did, because it was easier for most people to say he deserved such treatment. This is obviously a lot more sensitive, because what does it mean when a team decides they don’t want that kind of publicity? I think it means political correctness has taken a firm hold on the league. As far as I’m concerned, it reminds me that it’s just entertainment after all, and superficial things play a role in the decision making.

            1. Perhaps he could certainly have been a backup QB someplace at least, but why should a team take on the extra PR baggage? There are very few players that could be considered irreplaceable. Kaepernick was not one of them.

              1. And that’s precisely the point. The fact that there was “PR baggage” is ultimately what sunk him, not his skill level. The same can’t be said of Michael Sam.

  30. I resent people like Eric using that word. That’s our word for making fun of you! We need it!

    1. The guy is not a snowflake. He has a point.

      Snowflakes are assholes on the left and Reason needs to quit it.

    2. Don’t have a cow, man.

  31. What part of workplace is workplace don’t people understand? And if you insist on protesting on the company’s dime, then don’t be surprised there are consequences.

    Here’s your martyrdom trophy.

    Seriously, imagine going to work at the bank and some guy or gal keeps harping on about perceived or real injustices that have nothing to do with work everyday. You’re going to want to a) rub jam in his or her face and b) tell him or her to take it outside. I’m a business owner and I know I’d be irritated. Not because I’m callous but because it’s a place of business and have to keep in mind the well-being of it and my employees.

    It’s a simple calculus really.

    I get all the freedom of speech/expression thing but some Lord me some decorum please. Some places should be free of political protests. Sheesh.

    1. There’s little more political than a politician attempting by law to dictate how a business must run itself over the mere free expression of it’s employees.
      As a purported business owner, you should know you’re constantly representative of your business. Be careful what you freely express, less you be outed as a hypocrite. And as a business owner, you ought appreciate the freedom to decide what’s appropriate for your employees to express or not on the job.

    2. Employer? I got no sympathy for you; you can always just shut the door and relax with your flask and cigarette.

      The worst is those “busy work” jobs that are brainless enough that you can do them while having a conversation. They can be the best if you’re alone and have more thoughts in your head than time, or if you’re paired or grouped with someone who’s fun to talk to. But Lord Almighty, that does not always happen, and when it doesn’t it is absolutely brutal. There are two women in the department store I frequent, where one has to “Mmm, that’s interesting” her way through interminable hours of the other’s carrying on about astrology, angel encounters, boring relatives, mistrust of conventional medicine, and so forth. It’s so horrible I think I actually stay away more than I should, like someone turning their face and heart away from being reminded of the suffering in the world, even though we know it’s still there even if we have not the courage to face it.

      1. DiegoF|1.7.18 @ 3:35PM|#
        “Employer? I got no sympathy for you; you can always just shut the door and relax with your flask and cigarette.”
        Fuck off, slaver.

        “The worst is those “busy work” jobs that are brainless enough that you can do them while having a conversation.”
        You probably get a lot of those, since you seem so well suited.

      2. I’m not talking about me per se and I certainly don’t engage. It’s okay to express yourself and go on about astrology as you say.

        I’m talking about protesting as in disrupting things.

        AND I DON’T SMOKE.

        But I do drink. Just not on the job. In investments we did after the markets closed but not in this business.

        1. Rufus, you’re OG. Who the fuck is Sevo and why is he so angry all the time?

        2. It’s okay to express yourself and go on about astrology as you say.

          Bah, typical boss! No empathy for the little guy!

          Actually, in all seriousness I’m with you; I’d definitely exercise a gentle hand with such things if I owned a business with employees. (Believe me, it does suuuuck to be stuck with one of these people, but such is of course part of life.) But does anyone actually disrupt things with their SJWing at the workplace? I’ve never heard of anything like that. What sort of business are you in?

          Even though I’ve never worked in remotely any such place, whenever someone mentions owning their own business I picture either some sort of bodega (if they’re in NYC) or some sort of wood-paneled Strickland Propane type deal. Hence the booze and smoking. And the venetian blinds; gotta have those.

          1. I do this, by the way, no matter how big a business we’re talking about. Like the Maersk Group heirs I picture retreating to their much posher wood paneling and big leather chairs to light their cigars and drink their expensive scotch. And again, I’ve never worked in such a place, but this is how I envision them for some reason.

            1. Yeh, you make a good point but I was trying to make the point the players are doing that in their place of work; and some paying customers simply don’t like it.

              Re Sevo. He lives in NoCal. Wouldn’t you always be angry too?

              /wink.

              1. That is he’s around progderp 24/7.

                1. Ah, I did not know; point taken. Then again, when a New Yorker thinks you should relax you should really do some soul searching.

                  I guess I just assumed that with the official adoption of your weed-and-opiates-fortified lifestyle Americans would acquire your flappy-headed chill. Maybe the real key is the Sixty Minutes Hate that is ice hockey.

          2. I’m Hank Hill’s boss.

    3. Some places should be free of political protests

      Spoken like a true libertarian.

      1. Riiiight. It’s just something we were taught all our lives.

        1. You’re supposed to be radicals for freedom, not people with standard opinions.

          But maybe you’d do better in public opinion if you didn’t confine your freedom maximalism to people who own businesses.

          1. A) I don’t give a shot about public opinion because many in the ‘public’ have no idea what it’s like to run a business despite having 1001 opinions about it.

            B) You make no sense.

            What else is new?

            1. ‘shit.’

              Stupid auto-correct.

            2. You people claim to be for more freedom than anybody else. Yet the only freedom you actually want to maximize is that of people who own businesses. Anyone else can shut up and be content spending most of their waking hours as serfs of the aforementioned, or they can strive largely in vain to be part of the 1%.

              The problem with what you’re trying to sell is that it’s just crap.

      2. Yeah Tony, you asshole. Some places SHOULD be free of protest. When I pay a private company to provide me a service like a football game, I don’t expect to be subjected to the bullshit political opinions of their paid employees. Of course, a marxist slaver piece of shit can’t possibly understand a simple concept like that. So go drink your fucking Drano.

        1. Vote with your feet. Don’t watch football anymore if you don’t like their product. The rest of us are subjected to far right wing nonsense throughout the game, yet we still watch. If I can take your conservative show, you can take the liberal one.

          1. Patriotism is part of football, and most pro sports in America. Progressive shows of sedition are not. Don’t even try to claim any bullshit equivalence. And again, it’s not a ‘conservative show’, it’s called patriotism. Given your snide comment, I doubt you understand that.

    4. “What part of workplace is workplace don’t people understand? And if you insist on protesting on the company’s dime, then don’t be surprised there are consequences.”

      Even when the workplace doesn’t want the government to intercede?

      What you’re advocating is a third party (the government) interfering in the free association between an employer and its employees. The issue is between the NFL and the players. It has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government.

      Jesus, this is libertarianism 101 guys.

      1. How am I advocating that? I’m just saying if someone has a beef with society do it on your own time. No on my premises.

        Otherwise, I agree.

        1. Well, the story is about the government interceding, and when you said “if you insist on protesting on the company’s dime, then don’t be surprised there are consequences.” That sentence seemed to indicate you were supporting the consequences that the government has come up with. My apologies if you were referencing some other consequences.

      2. What you’re advocating is a third party (the government) interfering in the free association between an employer and its employees.

        Bullshit. This law would not force the employer to do anything to its employees.

        1. Again, libertarianism 101: fines, taxes, regulations = force

  32. JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — NFL commissioner Roger Goodell defended the league despite a drop in television ratings by saying that NFL games accounted for 20 of the 30 highest-rated shows in 2017.

    “We always want ratings to go up, but we’re 37 of the top 50 shows, which is higher than ever,” Goodell told a small group of reporters shortly before the Jacksonville Jaguars’ home playoff game against the Buffalo Bills on Sunday. “We’re likely to be the No. 1 show on Fox — excuse me on all of television, the Fox Sunday afternoon game. Sunday night, prime time is for the seventh year in a row the No. 1 show. Thursday night football is No. 2.

    (ESPN) http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/…..gs-decline

    Cons weep.

    1. “Cons weep.”

      Lefty assholes post lies/

    2. Hey dickface, how come you never talk up the markets anymore?

      1. Dow’s gains in Trump’s first year are best-ever for a Republican, but 4th overall (behind Obama and two others)

        https://goo.gl/7fjhgN

    3. 10% drop in ratings, third consecutive drop in ratings, empty stadiums, players’ brains still being turned to mush. Winning!

      The NFL is number 1 on occasions when some networks are still showing reruns in the holiday season. Whoop de do.

      1. “empty stadiums”

        Teams with over 10,000 people on their season ticket waiting list:

        Denver Broncos
        New York Giants
        New Orleans Saints
        New England Patriots
        Philadelphia Eagles
        Baltimore Ravens
        Houston Texans
        Tennessee Titans
        Green Bay Packers
        Seattle Seahawks

        In places like Green Bay, New England, and Philadelphia, the wait list is over 10 years.

        According to ESPN, more than half of the teams in the league are sold out every single week. Only five teams in the league (four of which are small market) have trouble selling out.

        Getting people to come to football games has NEVER been a problem and doesn’t appear to be something that anyone is concerned about in the future. It’s all about TV contracts and advertising dollars. That’s the issue. And most sports are hurting right now.

    4. Cool story PB. Yet they’re actual year over year ratings are cratering. Any more bullshti you want to peddle? No? Ok, bye-bye douchebag.

  33. Cons (weep (Cons (weep Cons Nil)))

  34. because it tackles, if you will,

    No. I will not.

    1. To my mind, the most offensive and triggering part of this whole discussion.

      1. Please be “triggered”. It suits imbeciles so well.

        1. ?? I don’t get it.

        2. He was saying that he is “triggered” by the ACLU official’s terrible football pun. As am I.

          {rocks back and forth, wrapped in blanket, cupping bowl of ice cream}

  35. Those protests, by the way, started as a way to make a point about police brutality against blacks?something that’s been largely forgotten


    It wasn’t “forgotten” since it was never clearly making any point at all

    I am reminded of a burlesque show i attended in williamsburg brooklyn in 2002. Someone came around for donations and i threw in a few dollars. I was later told it was “In opposition to the war in Iraq”.

    an “Antiwar” burlesque show

    No one who attended was exercising their anti-war animus. they were watching buxom women strip.

    If any of these shitheads like Kaepernick wanted to protest police brutality, they could very well have staged protests in front of their local police stations, and gotten all the media coverage they wanted.

    instead, they chose a more insulting-to-the-paying-audience method of “showing their contempt for the anthem”.

    I don’t give a flying fuck either way, and think if an audience doesn’t like it, they can stop attending, or stop watching. But please don’t pretend that these show-boating overpaid athletes really give a fuck about “police brutality”.

    and this attempt at using the “Snowflakes” moniker for conservatives is a stupid Tu Quoque that i thought was exclusive to Robby. If you want to come up with some term for easily-injured feels, find some new one appropriate to herd-line social-cons…. don’t just re-appropriate the term used to describe the SJW set.

    1. “If any of these shitheads like Kaepernick wanted to protest police brutality, they could very well have staged protests in front of their local police stations, and gotten all the media coverage they wanted.”

      The media would never cover that. It’s a boring story.

      I think it’s foolish to say that Kaepernick should have done things differently. He (and the protest in general) got more coverage than he ever imagined. If the goal is media coverage, he was wildly successful. You may disagree with his message, his point, and his use of the platform, but you can’t possibly disagree with the fact that it was one of the most effective protests in US history (if the point of the protest was awareness).

      1. By that metric, Fred Phelps protesting the funeral of Matthew Shepard was the most effective protest in U.S. history.

        1. Without making any modification to their ideological platform, what other form of demonstration could have served their interests better? It’s not like they were being deluged with invitations to speak at the floor of the UN at the time.

        2. Who?

        3. Nah. The Phelps clan got way more coverage years later when they started protesting the funerals of dead vets, then they ever got from their days protesting dead gays.

          And yeah. When they started protesting dead vets, their message (blaming gay people for everything ill in America) was spread far and wide. The message didn’t have the impact they wanted, but it spread so much that their name became a household one synonymous with their message.

          But it wasn’t protesting Matthew Shepard’s funeral that did it. It was protesting soldier funerals.

      2. If the goal is media coverage, he was wildly successful. You may disagree with his message, his point, and his use of the platform

        He’s out of a job, he’s widely recognized as an idiot, and the issue he was ostensibly raising “awareness” of has largely shifted in the opposite direction, with more people claiming there’s a “war on cops” than spending an iota of time concerned with excessive use of force by police.

        You’re deluded. “awareness” is a bullshit, meaningless term. The protests did less than nothing for the claimed “cause” – they undermined it and deflected attention away from it. You’re utterly deluded to think otherwise.

        1. “”awareness” is a bullshit, meaningless term.”

          With billions of dollars generally spent annually on “awareness”, you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone of that. Once you recognize how absolutely critical awareness is, I think you’ll understand that his protest was very effective.

          I think the fundamental problem here is that you’re projecting. You had a pretty thorough understanding of the issue of policing prior to Kaepernick’s protests. I don’t know you, but you’re on a libertarian site, so I’m pretty sure you’ve been exposed to these issues for a very long time. But that places you in the minority. A landmark study in 2000 showed that Americans attitudes about the police are derived primarily from the mass media. Given the unprecedented amount of media coverage of the protests (which in my view have been pretty evenly split), there’s no doubt that it has had a profound impact on how Americans view this issue. My impression is that lots of people who were previously indifferent (or were simply unaware) are no longer so passive on this issue.

          I also view this as a net gain for libertarianism, even if we don’t completely align with the viewpoints of the protesters. The issue of policing has been a central focus of libertarians for decades, and it’s about time it’s gotten some airtime. I don’t remember a time since the 90s that it’s been so talked about.

    2. Uh-oh, someone’s been triggered.

      Would you like a binky?

      1. Yeah, you’re totally not a leftist, you just happen to always side with them and use the same puerile argument tactics they do.

        1. He moves the goalposts just like them too.

    3. “used to describe the SJW set.”

      I object to your use of the word “set” in this context. A set is the proper term for a group of normal people. We prefer you use the word “tribe” when referring to SJWs.

  36. You’re a snowflake if you feel offended enough to demand refunds. Most people won’t do this. I can respect the player’s 1A rights, but I can call them out and refuse the give the league my business. That would be good enough.

    I can’t associate Islam with terrorism in any manner whatsoever, but it’s completely fair for these players to make blanket statements on cops? If you’re coming to practice with socks depicting cops as pigs, you’ve thrown constructive dialogue out the window. Kap bestowed praise upon monsters who headed actual polices states. None of these people would be kneeling if the victims were white, that’s a fact.

    1. If the victims were mostly white the problem would have been addressed decades ago.

      1. Do white people have more agency or what?

          1. Black-run areas having less police brutality is an interesting hypothesis.

            1. Why is that? Black people in power can’t be racist against black people?

              The problem isn’t (necessarily) about white people. It’s about people wielding power in racially motivated ways. The solution isn’t (necessarily) to put more black people in power. It’s to stop abusing power. Or, as we libertarians have been advocating forever, to limit the extent to which power exists, then it’s harder to wield it.

          2. Tony, if whites really have more power, then wouldn’t albinos basically have superhuman abilities on Superman’s level?

    2. The problem with your analogy is that a very tiny percentage of muslims in the US inflict violence on peaceful people, whereas the vast majority of police officers inflict violence on peaceful people. Police officers, by definition, are agents of a violent state, and they follow through with the state’s orders because it’s in their job description.

      So, implicit in the protest against the police is protest against the state, whether these football players realize it or not. And if you’re against protesting the state and the historic level of violence that it commits against its own citizenry, then I have to wonder what you’re doing reading a libertarian website.

    3. You’re a snowflake if you feel offended enough to demand refunds.

      Baloney. “Snowflake” refers to being offended by an expansive swath of discourse to the extent that you must coercively destroy it whenever you find out about it.

  37. Conservative snowflakes

    Cosmos are the real racists.

    says Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana. “The First Amendment … certainly protects businesses and their employees from government regulation that seeks to discourage speech based on its content.”

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. Except for sexual harassment and hate speech, of course.

    2. Well it is nice to see a left wing organization argue that a business has rights.

  38. I’m offended by Salute to Service and every other flyover, fly-by, hand-over-chest, trot out the gimp jizz, Eagle-landing, flag-waving, anthem-singing jizz-fest over the military-America complex at football games.
    Can I get my money back?

    1. No Yards Penalty|1.7.18 @ 9:54PM|#
      “I’m offended by Salute to Service and every other flyover, fly-by, hand-over-chest, trot out the gimp jizz, Eagle-landing, flag-waving, anthem-singing jizz-fest over the military-America complex at football games.
      Can I get my money back?”

      I’ve missed most of those, since if I’m watching a game, I try to eave the tube off until the jingoism is gone.
      There are several automobile races I watch each year, and avoiding the pre-race crap is a constant effort.

      1. Yeah…….you’re just so ‘above’ being patriotic, aren’t you?

  39. Agreed right up to this:

    It’s no better than the suggestion, made by Trump in September, that NFL teams should fire players who protest the anthem.

    How is a suggestion to a private entity equivalent to attempting to use government force to quell speech?

    Oh…you hate Trump, so principles be damned. Come on, guys. I hate the guy too, but It ain’t the same fuckin’ ballpark. It ain’t the same league. It ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport…

    1. Another winner

    2. “How is a suggestion to a private entity equivalent to attempting to use government force to quell speech?”

      Because it almost invariably leads to a threat by the government official against the private entity, which in turn usually leads to legislation against the private entity or executive action against the private entity.

      Everyone said it was benign when it happened, and those of us who said “give it time, it will ultimately turn into government force” are starting to be proven correct.

  40. I agree there should not be a law mandating that offended fans get their money back. I take issue at the tone of the article calling offended fans snowflakes. The writer uses the proposed legislation to bash White fans. He says fans are wrong to be offended by black players kneeling during the anthem. He says the protests are needed due to the huge amount of White police brutality against blacks. There is no evidence of police brutality in higher amounts against blacks than against any other race. In fact, Whites are more likely to be killed by police than blacks. The black players are actually protesting the innate racism of Whites. So basically, the black players are showing their contempt for the White fans by kneeling. I think White fans understand this, but are uncomfortable saying it. It’s more politically correct saying they’re offended by disrespect for the anthem.

    1. Welcome to Reason in 2018.

      And 2017, 2016, 2015, …

    2. “There is no evidence of police brutality in higher amounts against blacks than against any other race.”

      Yes there is.

  41. Asleep at the Wheel!
    Who gave the obligatory “Trump is a Poopyhead” speech at the H-wood sales meeting (with tits).

  42. “Those protests, by the way, started as a way to make a point about police brutality against blacks?something that’s been largely forgotten as the protests and reactions to them were subsumed by political tribalism once Trump got involved.”

    *Black* Lives Matter is inherently political tribalism, and would remain so in an alternate universe where Trump had never existed.

    But every Reason article must blame Trump for everything bad in the universe.

    TDS, Now and Forever!

  43. With a sung anthem, jets flying over the stadium and military veterans doing the official promo, I think it’s safe to say that loudmouth display of “USA uber alles” patriotism is an integrant part of “the NFL experience”.

    So seeing morons kneeling is equivalent to entering a steakhouse, ask for a T-bone and then get served some tofu shit because “fuck you specist, we don’t support the killing of animals”. Even though you ordered a meal and got served a correctly nutritive meal, you would be fucking entitled a refund.

    Same applies to conservative NFL ticket holders, and there is nothing wrong with legislative piece precising that getting served a different show than the one you thought you were buying is valid ground for a refund.

    1. This is a fair point. It’s no secret that the NFL has been catering to conservatives for decades, and that they include all the hoopla that conservatives might find appealing. There was an article written recently about the correspondence between the game of football and the battlefield, which suggested that football as a sport intentionally mimics war. The guys who get off on that shit are naturally going to be more likely to watch football. So it makes sense that the NFL would cater to that group.

      But then there are those of us (including most of the players) who do not hold those same political values but who like the sport. We’ve held our tongues for a very long time. When I go to games, I stand up and take my hat off because people go apeshit when you don’t chant in unison with their song or take part in their holy ritual that honors the state and war. I feel slightly uncomfortable for only about 30 seconds and then it’s over. It would be nice if conservatives could do the same. In an ideal world, you’d do the ritual if you were into it and you’d let people who don’t want to do the ritual sit down. Live and let live. But everyone is too interested in what everyone ELSE is doing.

    2. If it’s fraud, then they can do a class-action lawsuit on those grounds and a special law isn’t needed or desired.

      That said, this seems a great test of the “Free Market” y’all talk about so much. Viewers can easily and directly inform teams/managers about their preferences, and those teams/managers can alter their behavior as they see fit. If a team continues to act in ways that displease fans, then those teams end up with less money, less money leads to less able to snatch up the best talent, and it becomes a cycle of mediocrity.

      So to put it simply… this legislation is only needed is if it’s (A) not fraud and (B) the “offended” group isn’t actually large enough to have a Free Market impact.

  44. Liberals want refunds? Aren’t they the ones protesting?

  45. A fragile, easily-offended “conservative” can be called a “snowflake”. It’s a term usually applied to liberals but if the shoe fits…

  46. How about a refund for pretending that Andrew Luck was going to be able to play this season?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.