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

Actually, the USSF can get punished if they create a separate set of rules and try to apply them.

It's happened before. FIFA is very strict with what they consider their turf, the little mafiosi.

 

They are bastards, aren't they?

 

USSF is in no way intertwined with the government so as to justify applying free speech restrictions against the USSF. The US government in no way controls USSFs actions. And the mere fact that USSF purports to represent the country in soccer does not convert it into a governmental entity. USSF is controlled and sanctioned, but by another private entity, FIFA. And anyone can claim to represent the United States in soccer.

She also could have a personal injury case or a breach of contract case, if the supporting facts exist. But nothing here suggests as much. The notion that USSF is punishing her because of a protected status, and not because she was kneeling, is frankly ridiculious.

 

For whatever reason it is, we either have free speech or we don't, FIFA shouldn't get their nose where they don't belong.

To me, any type of peaceful protest is a good protest, those "patriotic bible" nuts are the main reason why Kapernick and Rapinoe are taking a knee.

 

Players should refuse to stand until we get a better national anthem. No disrespect to Frankie S. Key or the place the Battle of Baltimore holds in every American's heart intended, but in the wrong hands, that ditty just hurts.

As to legislating "patriotic" standing - ffs, really? sigh...

 

A proper protest would involve rejecting the callup and the accompanying cash. Either do that or stand respectfully.

 

life isn't always so black and white.

 

It is hypocritical to accept the honor and money of representing the nation, while refusing to honor the ceremonial aspect of the callup.

 

what is more American than expressing their right to express themselves in whatever manner they see fit (provided it is indeed non-violent).

Also again so many hold the Flag and anthem in higher regard than they have to be. They mean something to me but so do values. And like all things, they can be manipulated.

To me it doesn;t matter if players stand or sit or kneel. It's up to them. I respect they feel strong enough to express themselves in that manner. What hurts is the idiots who demand they be punished.

 

Agree 100%.

And Kate and Lauren are Bad Ass.

 

(1) The flag and anthem are symbolic representations of the American people at large. If you seek to represent the people in soccer, and get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so, you should also respect the symbolic representation of those people. Or at least avoid kneeling in light of the fact that kneeling is a divisive action that will offend and divide many American people you purport to represent.

(2) Rapinoe is free to express herself on her own time however she pleases. But when she is acting as a well-paid employee of US Soccer, she must comply with work-related restrictions on speech.

(3) You support free speech when it is consistent with your political beliefs, yet you seek its limitations for those you disagree with. (See Bobby Wood and Confederate Flag thread). This type of self-serving adoption of free speech values deserves little respect.

 

It's an old British drinking song. If you listen to it carefully, you notice it has the typical structure of those. The Anacreontic Society was a haven for lushes.

 

Not trying to single you out but I remember you taking a pretty strong stance against what you labelled as hate speech in another thread. Seems a bit of a contradiction to uphold the right to express one's self however they see fit, but also argue against hate speech.

As soon as something is labelled hate speech and deemed not allowable, free speech no longer exists. Free speech is meant to protect what offends and what is unpopular.

Other point would be you don't get to express yourself however you like when you represent an organization, an entity or a business. They set the rules, you comply or look elsewhere. I have zero issue with the organization which represents American soccer internationally demanding no protesting while on the clock, getting paid and representing our country. They aren't there for politics, they're there to play soccer. But if Rapinoe or others wish to go on tv, write a blog, tweet, kneel, protest, form an org or non-profit to deal with whatever issue you have, whatever, on their own time, have at it.

And my personal belief is kneeling is the laziest form of "protest" one can make. I also personally find it a bit ridiculous to theoretically have some of our NT players kneeling in protest when numerous countries we play against have far more concerning and far more serious rights issues than we do. That doesn't mean we don't have issues here but I'd find it quite weird if we played Russia at the WC and it was our players kneeling and protesting our country. To me that's a bit like protesting cold food when the person across from you hasn't eaten in a week.

 

Didn't realize there was a guide for proper protest. Can I get it in ebook form?

This is freisland's rule: do what you feel is right as long as you are willing to endure the consequences.

And, as has been well established on these boards, freisland's rules are the right rules.

 

I didn't realize we need a written guide to determine whether something is proper or not--because we don't.

 

Well, we have a guide to what is proper in terms of non-violent protest. It's called the Constitution and it's articles and amendments. Check it out - it's awesome!

 

You're absolutely right. Freedom of speech is important. Though of course 1 can obviously denote "hate speech". It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Though as you mentioned it can be changed depending on who wants it to mean this and that. We are seeing this with the current idiot in charge.

All persons can protest. My protests against racial discrimination in America may seem like nothing compared to say those in the Sudan who were facing ethnic cleaning by the Janjaweed 12 years ago. But it's still valid. Protest in themselves have merit whether the loom large enough in our eyes or not.

Whether kneeling was lazy or had any actual meaning has been basically over-exaggerated due to knee-jerk reactions such as this passing. Must we really do more to swear fealty to this country? Do we see the Dutch or Norwegians or Italians doing something like this? What about the Canadians or the Aussies? Why must we Americans always have idiots who put their country above their common understanding of their fellow man? What is patriotism if it is only nationalism that drives men wild.

 

Oh yes, I've read it. I believe it states that "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech," with no mention of restrictions to non-profit entities such as USSF and its ability to regulate employee speech or conduct.

 

The only reason a policy has been instituted is because an American player decided to kneel during their own national anthem.

Do we see the Dutch or Norwegians or Italians doing something like this? What about the Canadians or the Aussies? Why must we Americans always have idiots who put their [political opinions] above their common understanding of their fellow man?

 

wait why is it idiotic? Do you understand what they're trying to relate to?

I imagine we don't see the Norwegian or Aussie version of this simply as their populations don't put up with the BS that we in America endure. It seemingly seems we have an endless level of tolerance for discrimination until eventually we realize the moral thing and we act upon this.

 

What's hate speech? If you support freedom of speech, by definition, hate speech can't and does not exist. If you trend towards the slippery slope of defining certain words/phrases as hate speech, it quickly becomes whatever one is offended by.

The root of free speech is to allow and protect what offends. However, that doesn't include threats and inciting violence, but neither are classified as free speech but rather, making a threat or inciting violence.

Sure, but not whenever, wherever. What I might protest in my free time is completely different than what I can protest when on the clock for my employer. My employer is not paying me to protest police brutality, they're paying me to represent them and get a deal done.

IMO it's degrading and harms your cause to label those who disagree with you as idiots. I personally had two cousins who died from a mustard gas attack in the Gulf War, also had both grandfathers serve this country, one cracking safes in WW2 against the Nazis. I don't appreciate people disrespecting the flag my family fought to protect but I do fully accept their right to protest against it. Just not when representing our country in unison.

Not sure how that makes me or people with similar beliefs, idiots. This is something new, I largely blame the media for it, but over the last 24 or so months being patriotic and proud of our nation is suddenly a negative. Meanwhile, far worse happens all across the globe and those same people in an uproar have little to say. Feminists ignoring the atrocities against women in the Middle East is just one example, although a blatant one. So when someone like Rapinoe wants to protest in favor of LGBT rights, fine, go right ahead. But when she fails to ever mention that LGBT people get thrown off roof tops and put to death in the Middle East, it seems insincere. And to me it stems from this new reality of the more comfortable you are, the easier it is to find something to complain about. First world problems.

 

Sure, it is very simple to understand what their protest is about.

Can you give me an example of any non-American protesting during their own national anthem?

The reason we now have a policy in place is because an American player decided to make a political statement during the national anthem while representing their country.

I am not aware of this being an issue in other countries, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if many other countries would institute a policy similar to the USSF's if their players decided to protest during their national anthems.

 

So basically you want people protesting that the USA is better than other places? So Megan should say "oh yeah we gays have it bad here but at least we are not murdered openly like in the Middle East?" That doesn't say much for us. By that very logic I can say how terrible things are in the USA for poor people when considering how the average person in Norway lives like a king. See it goes both ways. Or I hear Black people in England have it better than Blacks here in the USA.

Face it. The majority of this nations problems tend to come from those who seem appalled at the realization that their "privileges" have come to an end and that they must recognize "all men are created equal".

You can't use the whole "died for their nation" as an umbrella to give a person more rights or say in a discussion. This isn't the king's army in which they can divide up their spoils.

Also you should realize that the govt plunges our men/women into unnecessary wars. It'd be 1 thing if we sent troops to stop genocide in the Sudan. But no, our guys are sent into Iraq for "nefarious reasons" which do nothing but embolden our enemies. And thus we are stuck in perpetual defensive positions against the likes of ISIS and their ilk. If you ask me that almost negates the sacrifice for our citizens when we constantly invite such a continuation of these very sacrifices.

 

LOL.