Whose coddling him ?

If free society disagrees ?
Appears to be pretty split.

Kaepernick jersey now best selling 49ers jersey.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000695751/article/hot-item-colin-kaepernick-jersey-sales-skyrocket

Among tops in NFL jerseys.

Additional players have joined him in sitting/kneeling, including a National Team women's soccer player.

I haven't noticed anyone coddling him or enabling him from protection from the backlash.

Articles out there that pretty much no other owner in the league would touch him due to this.

And he had a pretty good last pre-season game.
Won an NFC Championship and got to another when healthy and he's not very good ?

Kaepernick jersey now best selling 49ers jersey.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000695751/article/hot-item-colin-kaepernick-jersey-sales-skyrocket

Among tops in NFL jerseys.

People are buying them for pure speculation. Probably most people had never heard of him before this. Now they know this is going to be his last season due to his sitting and all the publicity. Time to buy all the jerseys you can and dump them on eBay. Remember the Twinkie scare? Same thing.

cashing in on drama.  its the Kardashian way.  they have millions this way.
maybe Kaepernick will be the next Caitlyn

Maybe they're buying his jersey to support his protest.

If this happened 20 years ago, I wonder his team mate Bill Romanowski would do?

No one in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so.  Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it.  But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest. 

Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions...

It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem.

A couple people in this thread said that Kaepernick "should" not have done his protest. Depending on how such are words interpreted, that's close to demanding that he shut up.

Trying to point out (claimed) inconsistencies in the critical opinions, is not attempting to shut down criticism of Kaepernick. That's rational discussion and welcome debate. For someone accusing others of putting words in peoples' mouths, you seem to do the same.

Invoking "free speech" is "veiling" Kaepernick's actions?

Quote from: Surf on Today at 10:47:31 AM

No one in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so.  Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it.  But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest. 

Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions...

It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem.


A couple people in this thread said that Kaepernick "should" not have done his protest. Depending on how such are words interpreted, that's close to demanding that he shut up.

Trying to point out (claimed) inconsistencies in the critical opinions, is not attempting to shut down criticism of Kaepernick. That's rational discussion and welcome debate. For someone accusing others of putting words in peoples' mouths, you seem to do the same.

Invoking "free speech" is "veiling" Kaepernick's actions?

You cut out a lot of what Surf said and you accuse of him of putting words in peoples' mouths???

A couple people in this thread said that Kaepernick "should" not have done his protest. Depending on how such are words interpreted, that's close to demanding that he shut up.

Trying to point out (claimed) inconsistencies in the critical opinions, is not attempting to shut down criticism of Kaepernick. That's rational discussion and welcome debate. For someone accusing others of putting words in peoples' mouths, you seem to do the same.

Invoking "free speech" is "veiling" Kaepernick's actions?

I refer you back to an earlier comment to clarify your misconceptions:

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD.

It has nothing to do with "Shut up" and everything to do with poor judgement.

This thread is but a small microcosm of where and why our country is where it is today and it is absolutely disgusting. 

Defenders of the 1st amendment and Kaepernicks right to free speach?  What a joke.  NO ONE in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so.  Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it.  But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest. 

On the other side of things, as soon as some people here invoked their right to speak freely about Kaepernick being an idiot, the exact opposite happened.  Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions or make them feel guilty for having an opinion contrary to his.  Deportation, fines, firing, financial considerations?  Typical tactics, twisting facts, changing the narrative, guilt trips and putting words in people mouths.  NONE of this was said.  Hell if I don't want to spend another dime on the 49ers and others happen to feel the same way, I sure as hell won't feel that I have slighted the 49ers or Kaepernick.  They are not OWED or have a RIGHT to any of my support.

It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem.  Let him speak.  Give him a venue to speak.  But if the free society disagrees with his message and it affects him professionally, than that is on him.  We are NOT telling him to shut up and we are NOT trying to shut him up.  But we sure as hell have just as much of a right to express our opinions as he does.  Some of you need to defend that just as vehemently as your defend Kaepernick.  I defend his right to speak and peacefully protest, but I sure as hell DO NOT agree with him either.   

I think the point of concern for some is the personal attacks instead of the attacks on the issue. For example if you and I disagree on an issue I won't disparage you personally. Then it becomes bitter and the actual issue is lost to the drama.

Our patriotism makes us think he is making a bad decision but in his mind I would hazard to guess that his patriotism makes him think he should make a statement.

Patriotism can be a very messy line to draw and I don't think we need to make it so personal when someone draws the line in a different place. Look at how galvanizing Snowden was.

I disagree with Kaepernick, I think his protest is founded on a lie, one he may be ignorant of though. But I don't hate him for what he did and I won't be blinded with anger. All that does is make the division wider and harder to fix.

I actually don't mind the personal attacks on Kaepernick. In this thread various people have called him an asshole or a turd. I have no objection to that in the slightest.

I mainly object to the couple of statements where it was (seemingly) implied that Kaepernick's actions, though (seemingly) permitted by the Constitution, "should" not have been done, with an (interpreted) threat of "consequences" thereafter.

This article written today illustrates why I am concerned with the vagueness of the Constitution and the fact that the 1st Amendment is NOT applied as consistently in America as most believe. The U.S. Supreme Court...by an 8-1 vote upheld the mandatory flag salute...Justice Frankfurter’s opinion found that the law did not infringe on any constitutional liberty of the individual. It was a “secular regulation" enacted to encourage patriotism...The need for everyone to stand and salute the flag outweighed the claims of individual religious liberty

Yeah that decision is old but today we have worse decisions than that on the books, we are losing 1st Amendment rights. What Kaepernick did could be made illegal at any point. Politicians or judges can even say "We make an exception and new rule starting today, and deport Kaepernick." They have done things like that before.

I actually don't mind the personal attacks on Kaepernick. In this thread various people have called him an asshole or a turd. I have no objection to that in the slightest.

I mainly object to the couple of statements where it was (seemingly) implied that Kaepernick's actions, though (seemingly) permitted by the Constitution, "should" not have been done, with an (interpreted) threat of "consequences" thereafter.

This article written today illustrates why I am concerned with the vagueness of the Constitution and the fact that the 1st Amendment is NOT applied as consistently in America as most believe. The U.S. Supreme Court...by an 8-1 vote upheld the mandatory flag salute...Justice Frankfurter’s opinion found that the law did not infringe on any constitutional liberty of the individual. It was a “secular regulation" enacted to encourage patriotism...The need for everyone to stand and salute the flag outweighed the claims of individual religious liberty

Yeah that decision is old but today we have worse decisions than that on the books, we are losing 1st Amendment rights. What Kaepernick did could be made illegal at any point. Politicians or judges can even say "We make an exception and new rule starting today, and deport Kaepernick." They have done things like that before.

No they can't.
Due process

No they can't.
Due process

You can't DEPORT a citizen.  If you kick someone out of the country, it's called EXILE or BANISHMENT.

Since unclaimed land is virtually nonexistent, the gov't would have to find another nation willing to accept the exiled person.  This makes exiling difficult, which is why nations do not do this any longer.

Some US states have banished criminals for a period of time, i.e. one year, but that is based on the state's constitution.

You can't DEPORT a citizen.  If you kick someone out of the country, it's called EXILE or BANISHMENT.

Since unclaimed land is virtually nonexistent, the gov't would have to find another nation willing to accept the exiled person.  This makes exiling difficult, which is why nations do not do this any longer.

Some US states have banished criminals for a period of time, i.e. on year, but that is based on the state's constitution.

I agree with you.
I disagree with PeaShooter. You can't deport Kaepernick and lawmakers can't go back make a law to deport Kaepernick. That's dumb (my opinion).

Yeah going back and changing the law on the spot to get a desired result is dumb. And is a violation of due process (the 14th Amendment). I wish I could say it never happens. Maybe I can explain how it does.

1) Even though they aren't supposed to, the courts can reverse even binding precedents at any time they like, and it probably happens more often than legal scholars want to admit. Example: the very same cases in my previous post. The first Supreme Court case as quoted above, ruled that saluting the flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory, and that patriotism overrides the 1st Amendment.

Just 3 years later, it seems the following happened. Immediately after the first decision, a lot of people got beat up. Some beaten up people sued again, and a lower court stated: Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not. … however ... we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority. The Supreme Court followed by accepting the lower courts' defiance and reversed themselves.

So courts can reverse themselves and make up whatever law, whenever they want.

2) When decisions are reversed, or new interpretations of law are made, the courts generally do not say "Well it used to be this way, so because we've changed the law as we considered your case, you get to have the old law applicable to you." Instead, it's tough cookies and the new law applies immediately. There are some instances where they might apply the "old law" on a one-time basis, when considering sovereign and qualified immunity (11th Amendment and Section 1983) but that is unfairly only allowed to go in the government's favor.

Yeah going back and changing the law on the spot to get a desired result is dumb. And is a violation of due process (the 14th Amendment). I wish I could say it never happens. Maybe I can explain how it does.

1) Even though they aren't supposed to, the courts can reverse even binding precedents at any time they like, and it probably happens more often than legal scholars want to admit. Example: the very same cases in my previous post. The first Supreme Court case as quoted above, ruled that saluting the flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory, and that patriotism overrides the 1st Amendment.

Just 3 years later, it seems the following happened. Immediately after the first decision, a lot of people got beat up. Some beaten up people sued again, and a lower court stated: Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not. … however ... we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority. The Supreme Court followed by accepting the lower courts' defiance and reversed themselves.

So courts can reverse themselves and make up whatever law, whenever they want.

2) When decisions are reversed, or new interpretations of law are made, the courts generally do not say "Well it used to be this way, so because we've changed the law as we considered your case, you get to have the old law applicable to you." Instead, it's tough cookies and the new law applies immediately. There are some instances where they might apply the "old law" on a one-time basis, when considering sovereign and qualified immunity (11th Amendment and Section 1983) but that is unfairly only allowed to go in the government's favor.

so how does this apply to Kaepernick? He is not in custody for not standing during the playing of the National Anthem.

Kaepernick's 1st Amendment rights have not been violated yet. I'm just saying that the train of thought exhibited opens him up to that possibility. That's why I asked what if questions. And some of you might be okay with him being fined or fired.

The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired by a private organization, but it should in a scenario like this. That's part of why 1st Amendment law in the United States is crap. The other reason why it's crap is that the government and courts inconsistently violate established law at their whim on a case-to-case basis such that it's meaningless.

There is case law regarding what you can and cannot be fired for when you are employed in government jobs. You can be fired for calling your boss names, but supposedly cannot be fired for speech on matters of public concern, such as political speech. Of course, judges break the established case law in this area all the time, too.

The time, place, and manner criteria is a different free-speech argument that I can accept. If Kaepernick were to be punished under that guise, it would have to be shown that indeed his actions were in violation of that.

This is going back a ways.

Anyways, how/why did you make the jump from NFL to government employment?  And btw, it's not THAT easy to get fired from many government jobs, especially after one passes the probationary period.  I've had the supervisor that sits next to me get pretty heated with one of the people in his group and let's just say that I would've fired the person, if I could.  Sure, you can't break laws or violate rules of the organization.  That said, when you sign on for the position (at least in positions that I have first hand knowledge of), you agree not to take certain actions, like using your position to endorse a politician or political party or actively campaigning for a candidate in the work place.  You're free to do that outside the work place while you are not acting in an official capacity.   

Regarding consequences, as mentioned above, one is ALWAYS responsible for the consequences of their actions.  I didn't mean that Kap should be arrested, censored, deported, etc.  However, there are many potential consequences that don't involve the legal system. 

I think the point of concern for some is the personal attacks instead of the attacks on the issue. For example if you and I disagree on an issue I won't disparage you personally. Then it becomes bitter and the actual issue is lost to the drama.

Our patriotism makes us think he is making a bad decision but in his mind I would hazard to guess that his patriotism makes him think he should make a statement.

Patriotism can be a very messy line to draw and I don't think we need to make it so personal when someone draws the line in a different place. Look at how galvanizing Snowden was.

I disagree with Kaepernick, I think his protest is founded on a lie, one he may be ignorant of though. But I don't hate him for what he did and I won't be blinded with anger. All that does is make the division wider and harder to fix.

While I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure that Kap's patriotism had nothing to do with his motivations or reasons for making "a statement". 

And I'm not angry with Kap.  I did watch part of one of SF's preseason games and waiting for him to get pummeled by a DE or LB.  But that's part of the game.   

The first amendment protects a person from the government trying to silence speech in opposition.

It does not protect one from other repercussions due to things said... such as being thought of by other people as being dumb/unpatriotic/ungrateful/etc.

Maybe they're buying his jersey to support his protest.

I'd imagine that's exactly the case. At the very least he's caused a discussion and he did it without the use of violence. In that sense, I commend his actions more than BLM, etc.

The first amendment protects a person from the government trying to silence speech in opposition.

It does not protect one from other repercussions due to things said... such as being thought of by other people as being dumb/unpatriotic/ungrateful/etc.

Maybe repercussions was a better term than consequences, at least for some.