• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The St. Louis Rams’ ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Protest [W:256]

This rates pretty low on my give a damn meter, but while I understand that one ought not to inject social or political commentary into your employer's image without prior approval, I also understand that the NFL and the St. Louis Rams are probably not interested in clamping down one way or the other on this issue unless a player advocates destruction of businesses and that sort.

As such, I don't think the degree of disdain about the players' commentary is in line with reality.
 
Nice attempt at deflection. Since someone doesn't protest everything they should protest nothing. Nice logic.

No, its just shows their bias.
 
My first Olympic memory. I was 6 and my parents bought our first color television so we could watch the Olympics. When it happened, I remember the look of horror on my parents' faces. I didn't understand it of course, but I do now, and I often wonder if Smith & Carlos still think that was a good idea.

I do remember the controversy with Jim McMahon when he played for the Bears, and Pete Rozelle. I often think that was just McMahon being, well, McMahon.

I love it when the NFK players use their stage in support of things, like breast cancer research, and when Victor Cruz wore the name of one of the small victims of Sandy Hook on his gloves and sneakers (I think it said "Jack Pinto my hero" or something like that). But maybe that needs to stop too? I don't know.

I just know that intentional protests of anything not at all related to football are simply not a good idea.

I think that support of charities is a good idea. Politics however is a very bad idea and will change the face of neutral competitive sports. It would be like players wearing patches for their favorite candidates and propositions and just nutty stuff. Naah, the NFL needs to act with finality on this one.
 
How silly. There record has nothing to do with this and you know it.

No, what's silly is attempting to infuse a sporting event with politics. The NFL exists because the audience wants to watch football. If political statements are going to be allowed at games, watch the audience disappear, and the revenue stream that goes with it.
 
No, what's silly is attempting to infuse a sporting event with politics. The NFL exists because the audience wants to watch football. If political statements are going to be allowed at games, watch the audience disappear, and the revenue stream that goes with it.

Then bitch to the NFL about it, I'm sure they care.
 
I think that support of charities is a good idea. Politics however is a very bad idea and will change the face of neutral competitive sports. It would be like players wearing patches for their favorite candidates and propositions and just nutty stuff. Naah, the NFL needs to act with finality on this one.

Excellent post and 100% agree.
 
That is the point. I know of no rule which prohibited the players from running onto the field as they did.

I think that you're right about the rules, but how about the rule of class and remembering where you are and what you're doing. There's no hard and fast rule about politics and the Oscars either, but look what happens when some winner stoops. They get booed and are pretty much sent packing. There is a time and place for everything: when the referees went on strike, the players kept their mouths shut on the field. Oh they argued calls, but that happens all the time. Off the field is another matter, and had those players or more called for the NFL to do something, or make a statement, I would have been behind those guys 100%.
 
and yet the possibility that there is rather discredits the notion that their doing so is a right.

you would first have to demonstrate that there is such a league or team prohibition and it was adopted with the agreement of the players association giving up any claimed right.
 
Then bitch to the NFL about it, I'm sure they care.

Your inability to separate politics from sports is your problem - not mine. If it's the NFL's problem too, their days as a successful enterprise are numbered.
 
Your inability to separate politics from sports is your problem - not mine. If it's the NFL's problem too, their days as a successful enterprise are numbered.

Right. :lamo
 
Nice.

Example of whose freedom I personally agree with who was protesting incorrectly on national television while in their employer's uniform? I'll wait.

Well the patrolman's association issued a political statement chastising the Rams, as posted in the OP. Not sure if the officers were wearing their uniforms at the time, but they certainly intended for the weight of their office to to add weight to the statement, which is why they issued it as a collective group (the union, in this case) and not as individuals on their own time. Do you also condemn the police officers for using their employers' uniforms to further their own political point of view?
 
The St. Louis Rams’ ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Protest - The Daily Fix - WSJ

<snip>

Professional sports are rarely a province for civil unrest. Take it from a young Michael Jordan, upon being asked to donate to a political campaign, apocryphally responding with “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” But there’s certainly opportunity to players to speak out, and on Sunday, several players for the St. Louis Rams made their voices heard.

As they came out of the tunnel during introductions before their game against the Oakland Raiders, Tavon Austin, Jared Cook, Chris Givens, Stedman Bailey, and Kenny Britt raised their hands in reference to the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” protest—a sign that became ubiquitous during the recent protests in Ferguson, Mo., over the shooting death of black teenager Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson. Following the subsequent investigation, a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson. Protesters across the country have voiced their displeasure with the decision—a number of them were stationed outside the Edward James Dome, where the Rams play. The gesture didn’t go unnoticed, even as the players, all of whom are black, tried to be diplomatic. Britt was quoted as saying, “Taking sides? We wanted to show that we were there for a cause that something positive comes out of it.”

As far as dialogue between opposing sides, much of which has exposed fractious fault lines within attitudes toward race and state, this passes for downright tranquil. And yet, the players were immediately criticized by the St. Louis Police Officers Association, which released a fiery statement criticizing the players and demanding an appropriate response—reprimand from the team, or the league


I don't blame the St. Louis PD. WTF? It was proven that Brown was not shot with his hands up in surrender contrary to what his little sidekick in the convenience store robbery claimed - and which people have clung on to as if it were true.

I'll bet these guys would call the St. Louis PD in a second if there big fancy houses were being robbed.

The PD's statement is here, and it is indeed "fiery"

SLPOA condemns Rams display

Protest is great. Support your cause. I'd love to see the Rams support some causes that are important to me and lots of others too, like animal abuse and elder abuse. But if they did do it where the protest could be seen, I would hope they would be honest about what happened and not feed into the rhetoric and propaganda as they did on Sunday.

Damn that freedom of speech
 
Well the patrolman's association issued a political statement chastising the Rams, as posted in the OP. Not sure if the officers were wearing their uniforms at the time, but they certainly intended for the weight of their office to to add weight to the statement, which is why they issued it as a collective group (the union, in this case) and not as individuals on their own time. Do you also condemn the police officers for using their employers' uniforms to further their own political point of view?

Huh? .
 
In you opinion would it be proper for you or your coworkers to do something similar at your work on company time?

If the same NFL players joined in on a protest on their own time, that is their business. Knowing they are on TV , its a bit political on their part

What the fudge isnt hyper political these days? In the Rams or NFL want to do something, that's their business. But it ain't yours.
 
Damn that freedom of speech

What the heck does this have to do with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech has never meant that you are shielded from the consequences of your speech, only that the government couldn't levy those consequences. The NFL is not the government and they regulate the speech of their players, especially on camera.
 
Do you also condemn the police officers for using their employers' uniforms to further their own political point of view?

if they are doing it WHILE they are doing their jobs then yes, they should be condemned. Have never heard of that happening.
those same players could show up to an Obama rally wearing their jerseys and I wouldn't have a problem with it. but that's not what happened. they made their "political statement" using airtime the NFL provided. Big difference, wouldn't you agree?
 
I agree with that. We don't really know the facts, but there's not enough evidence to prove a case against the officer.

I still believe in the right of the players to make their statement.

So do I, free speech above all else, imo.
 
What the heck does this have to do with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech has never meant that you are shielded from the consequences of your speech, only that the government couldn't levy those consequences. The NFL is not the government and they regulate the speech of their players, especially on camera.

"Blah blah blah I hate how they express their opinion". Got it. As I already said, up to the Rams and NFL; no one else.
 
Well the patrolman's association issued a political statement chastising the Rams, as posted in the OP. Not sure if the officers were wearing their uniforms at the time, but they certainly intended for the weight of their office to to add weight to the statement, which is why they issued it as a collective group (the union, in this case) and not as individuals on their own time. Do you also condemn the police officers for using their employers' uniforms to further their own political point of view?



So, it's ok for the rams to make a political statement, but not ok for another organization to come out with thier own political statement condemning it?
 
Well the patrolman's association issued a political statement chastising the Rams, as posted in the OP. Not sure if the officers were wearing their uniforms at the time, but they certainly intended for the weight of their office to to add weight to the statement, which is why they issued it as a collective group (the union, in this case) and not as individuals on their own time. Do you also condemn the police officers for using their employers' uniforms to further their own political point of view?

But the P.O's association didn't run onto the field. They made a supportive statement about their officer's in the propper place for such a statement.

Had the players lined up in a press conference to raise up their hands, they would receive at least my support. People and businesses pay a lot of money to see anad sponsor a professional sporting event in a politically neutral setting, and it's politically neutral for a reason.
 
"Blah blah blah I hate how they express their opinion". Got it. As I already said, up to the Rams and NFL; no one else.

No you don't got it. Nor apparently do you understand freedom of speech.
 
you would first have to demonstrate that there is such a league or team prohibition and it was adopted with the agreement of the players association giving up any claimed right.

On the contrary - not being allowed to engage in political speech as a condition of employment is a decision of the employer, not the employee. It is thus not a right of the employee, otherwise employers would be unable to make those decisions.
 
No you don't got it. Nor apparently do you understand freedom of speech.

Oh I don't? Well please good sir, enlighten me. For I took freedom of speech to mean that a man can express his opinions, particularly where it applies to government, freely and without government intervention. Now I already said its up to the Rams and NFL, but it seems perhaps you think the restrictions should extend past that. So why dont you enlighten us all here, why don't you state explicitly what other restrictions are upon Free Speech. You know, so that I can understand what freedom really means.

I'll wait.
 
Back
Top Bottom