Should US National Team Players Be Required To Stand For The National Anthem?

To the extent that such "free speech" is detrimental to the employer, they absolutely can. Reasonable accommodation has never been found to mean allowing employees to do as they please.

 

For someone who's extremely confident about his opinions, they lack a ton of historical context. Racism in the US is indeed embedded in our country. As it is in every country that has mixed populations of peoples. The US isn't even the worst slave state in its hemisphere, considering that the Brazillian slave trade was a literal meat grinder. 6 percent of the African slave trade went to British NA, yet after slave importation is banned in the 1820's, the US has 25 percent of the Black population in the Hemisphere. Probably because most slaves sent elsewhere died within 2 years from disease or maltreatment. But you're right, we're the devil for using slaves because Britain wanted raw materials for their mills to turn into manufactured goods, and Britain is so progressive and nice because they discontinued a trade that was never necessary for their economy in the first place. And, besides, they bought all the slave-produced goods hand over fist, so when Southern cotton got blockaded in port, the progressive mill workers in England rallied around the Union.... oh wait, they actually flew Confederate flags, supplied the Confederacy with weapons, almost brought the Royal Navy to bear on the Union ships.

It was a document intended to create a democratic society with a flexible system of government, outside of key provisions (the Bill of Rights). Jefferson wanted it totally updated every 20 years to reflect each generation's vision for society, and so that future generations could "rid themselvess of any shackles from the past". The fact that the Founding Fathers were not all espousing the values of today (some 250 years later) does not, in my opinion, overshadow the exceptional document that they penned.

Please get me a source on the "Abolitionism in England was causing all kinds of problems in the US, where blacks even tried to defect to and fight for England, and was one of the tensions leading to the break for independence.", and of course, your suggestion that the US was alone in its support of slavery is so factually incorrect as to be deliberately misleading.

If you have an updated anthem, nobody's stopping you from suggesting one. Begin a campaign to get it adopted, and to have it replace the current one. But, the prevailing public opinion is such that the current anthem is here to stay at the moment. And just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that everyone else shares your view, or that anyone should cater to your whim. You can dislike the US and/or the flag as is your right. Just don't be surprised if you're not in the majority.

Nobody is asking you to sing, or even like it. The USSF is asking that you keep your opinions on it to yourself while you represent them during the national anthem, so for only a short period of time. If you are so offended by that, you're free to not go to games, to not accept callups, or whatever else you need to do. But if you're a player, getting paid by the USSF to represent them, the rule is, at least stand respecfully.

Like, to be honest, the rest of this is just window dressing. We're not going to agree on these issues (although our freedom to disagree is, in my opinion, simply more evidence of the positive impact of the Founding Fathers) about the anthem, what the US stands for, or the Founder's relative levels of "goodness".

What matters in this thread is whether or not it's OK for the USSF to mandate that players stand for the national anthem. I'm simply loath to delete all the stuff above, so I won't. Read it if you want.

 

Your categorical assertion is simply false.

For example, in NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, IBEW (Jefferson Standard Broadcasting), 346 U.S. 464 (1953), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a union employee's disparagement of her employer or its products is protected under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act if it: (1) occurs in the context of an ongoing labor dispute; (2) is related to that dispute; and (3) is not egregiously disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue.

Thus, if Megan Rapinoe were to kneel in order to make a statement about women's players' ongoing labor dispute with the Federation, her kneeling would be protected speech, unless a court were to determine that kneeling was "egregiously disloyal," which of course it is not.

Rapinoe's own statements about why she kneeled suggests that the doctrine of Local 1229 is inapplicable in her case, but it could be among other athletes in the future. Regardless, US Soccer's rights are hardly "absolute."

 

I didn't say the anthem was about the Revolution and even if I did make that error, it would not undermine my core argument: that the anthem itself is part of a popular myth that allows Americans to feel good about believing they stand at the pinnacle of freedom and justice when all evidence points to the contrary. I'm not saying you shouldn't love your country. I'm saying you shouldn't love your country based on bullshit.

 

Remember, history is a snapshot of two time periods. The events when they happened and the time someone is writing about those events.

 

You point out all the valid reasons on what would be protected speech but you don't connect it to Rapinoe and the USSF. Of course its not applicable. And I contend that any player kneeling for the anthem would struggle to show that it relates to the dispute. If they said USSF is sexist toward women during the dispute that is much closer to being protected than I kneel for the anthem because of our labor dispute. Huh?

 

The Star Spangled Banner was written while American slaves were being killed fighting for their freedom. And the anthem celebrates the killing of the un-free, per the link I've now posted twice.

 

During a Labor dispute, the entire USWNT could refuse to play, or they could kneel for the anthem to make their point that they deserve better recompense. If they kneel on behalf of better pay their action is protected under the law.

 

Well, the post I replied to specifically was about whether or not racism was part of the US value system or merely an unhappy accident and I believe it's clearly the former. The US is not unique in this respect, nor is it unique in having some national mythology that sorta lies about the origins of the country (or at least, focuses on the positive stuff). The US IS unique, however, in claiming to be exceptional for its freedom and justice-loving ways, but I'm not even holding that against it. Mind you, in general, I'm not saying not to love the US because of these blemishes (or at all). BUT, if we have to pretend the blemishes don't exist to love our country, then, well...that's just blindness, not patriotism.

Re: the USSF and this specific policy I'm actually pretty indifferent. My personal opinion on that (as I think I said earlier) is, if your conscience is really bothering you (e.g. Megan Rapinoe) then stay home. Don't accept money to come in and train and wear a US shirt and kick the hell out of some Central American country, then kneel during the anthem.

OTOH, lawfully, I don't think a private employer can force an employee to comply with this kind of act, which raises a whole lot of interesting questions. But there are posters more knowledgeable than me on that aspect.

 

I would tend to agree with you. You did ultimately have to change alot of facts to get close though. I do think they may still have an small issue of relating kneeling for the anthem to the labor dispute. Particularly since there was Rapinoe and others who are kneeling for a whole other set of reasons. You are getting closer but that really has nothing to do with present facts. We'll resume the conversation when the whole team kneels for the anthem then claims its because of of the collective bargaining disagreement.

 

I didn't have to change any facts to "get close" to establishing my case that the Federation's anthem policy is likely illegal. I gave you a labor law example to demolish your absolutist assertion about the supposed rights of private employers to treat their employees as they please.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, the US Soccer Federation is bound by the US Constitution insofar as the Federation is "representing" the United States in international soccer play, and the Constitution protects players' freedom of speech and religion.

Further, insofar as the Federation has discriminated against Megan Rapinoe on the basis of her gender in the drafting or application of the anthem policy, the policy violates federal employment discrimination laws.

Insofar as it discriminated against her to retaliate for other labor dispute-relate speech, the Federation probably violated various labor laws.

And depending on where a player kneels in the future, the Federation could run afoul of state laws. California's constitutional free speech rights apply to privately held shopping centers, for example, under the quasi-public forum doctrine, which I believe can be construed to encompass California sports arenas, like Avaya Stadium, where the USMNT will play in 10 days.

 

Please answer this question. Would FIFA still be able to suspend players or fine the USSF,etc. if such action was taken regardless of US laws?

 

Please rephrase the question so it is comprehensible. And also explain its relevance to the discussion at hand. Thanks.

 

I'm sure you understand the question and relevance. Stop being coy.

 

You are factually incorrect with this statement. You made it up. There is no "representing' the US free speech court standard required of private non-profit organizations. That's why you first tried to make it a gender case, then you tried to make it protected class case for homosexuals case then you had the whole team kneeling for a NLRB labor dispute. You're trying to shift a workplace free speech case to a discrimination or a labor dispute. You're just fishing. Most lawyers do.

 

I think the US is unique in the "muh freedoms" department because we don't have much of a history to fall back on. Our short time on this planet as an independent country has been defined by disparate peoples. People who were not free inside of their very oppressive monarchies, coming to a place with comparably few restrictions and rules. The wild frontier and vast tracts of land, the lack of a powerful central government, the lack of a dominant ethnic group, and the lack of a State religion. All these things combine to allow a freedom of movement and expression that, for a long time, was unheard of.

I understand why people keep harping on the contradiction of slavery and "freedom" in the US, but once again, you're looking at history through a modern lens. At that time, slavery was much more commonplace. Of course people back then didn't see a contradiction, because they thought people with more melanin in their skin were subhuman. And of course, even that sentence wouldn't make sense because we didn't discover melanocytes until the late 19th century! Not to mention, racist concepts like avoiding "mixed" marriages to keep ethnic purity have endured for an extremely long time all around the world. For an example, my Grandpa grew up in an Irish part of NYC. Irish people did not mix with Italians. Or Jews. Or the Poles, or the Greeks. Or any other ethnic group. And visa versa. If a mixed marriage did occur, both sets of families often shunned the offending couple. This is the 1940's and 50's mind you, not long ago. And despite the supposed progress that a lot of these Western European nations have made, they're just scratching the surface of ethnic diversity in comparison to the US, and look at the sudden rise of nationalism already, despite the lack of slavery-related skeletons in their collective closets.

Like, my point is, it makes sense why the American mythos centers around "freedom". We offered comparatively more freedom for much of our history until European countries began to change and offer comparable levels. I mean, there are European ethnic groups that have lived within themselves for hundreds or thousands of years. Dozens of groups, crammed together in Europe, yet staying almost entirely within themselves. Sure, there are many examples of migrations of ethnic groups, but even then, those ethnic groups simply moved, they didn't really mix. Unlike most other places, we can't form a mythos around an ancient ethnic or religious group, because we don't have a group that's dominant enough. So the US becomes another Europe, essentially, with the addition of dozens of African ethnic groups, plus Latin Americans, Asians, and American Indians thrown in. And we haven't killed each other yet? That's pretty good compared to expectations!

Perhaps I'm setting the bar too low. And for sure, there are issues of racism and ethnocentrism that need to be ironed out. But my Aunt can tell me a story about a time in 1969 when her (Irish) butcher suddenly lamented about "White men not being able to breathe 'round here", referring to two Italians walking on the other side of the street. So in comparison to that, I think we've made some pretty damn good progress.

On topic, I don't think the USSF is on very shaky ground here. But if they are, I'm sure we'd see a challenge. I just think we won't, because it's tough to make the case that they're overstepping their bounds here...

 

I'm sure I don't.

And I'm not your trained seal. If you want to engage me in a conversation by asking me a question, and I ask for an explanation in return, please oblige or take a hike.

 

A fascinating experiment is reading history books from other countries.

Every people paints themselves as special in their own narrative.

 

You're misrepresenting my numerous posts. I've discussed many times on this thread the applicability of the federal constitution to private entities entwined with the government, including citing case law, and did so before ever raising the gender discrimination issue. And, as for "fishing," an illegal edict is frequently illegal on several grounds. Megan Rapinoe's case can be both a workplace free speech case, a gender discrimination case, and a sexual orientation discrimination case, all wrapped into one, just a someone who commits a crime often is charged with violating several laws simultaneously.

 

I don't remember any case law you posted about the courts and the constitution and private companies and free speech. Just throw the kitchen sink at too while you're at it.

 

If the players taking a knee is protected by US law can FIFA still suspend them for making a political statement?

 

I don't believe so if the player takes the knee within the United States.

 

You are 100% wrong.

 

Wouldn't be the first time.

Legal authority for your bald assertion?

 

Josep Simunic. The rules may change due to American money but FIFA can do as they please. FIFA made English teams remove poppies from uniforms because FIFA claimed it was political. It's not a stretch to assume they can punish who they want for politics.