[BobCarl]

These are some bold allegations against the Government/POTUS ("Congress") by CK.

If he really believes these to be true ... and if he is really devoted to his "social justice" claim, then he should bring forth a claim of having his Civil Rights violated by the POTUS.

Unless/until he does that, I will continue to view CK as a "sell out" and has taken advantage of the the legit (past, present, and future) victims that he supposedly has been advocating for.

[/zn/]

AvengerRam wrote:
Here is a link to CK’s complaint and demand for arbitration:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... vance.html

If anyone, after reading this, still believes that this case was not an effort by Kaepernick to challenge the NFL/teams’ efforts to suppress his “social justice activism,” and to do so publicly (note how CK’s lawyer specifically requested a waiver of confidentiality) I strongly recommend a remedial reading course.

Follow arguments better, dude.

No one said that the case did not include CK making it clear that he did not like them reacting the way they did to his protests.

(Though CK would of course know that his activism did not reduce solely and simply to protesting on the field as a player. So they can't, didn;t, and haven't suppressed his activism, which included but always went way beyond anthem protests as a player.)

Anyway. What got said is that winning the case represented no gains for the key social justice issues. That's just true.

And it's an entirely different thing from what you're getting at.

What actual gains? He could, with a win, get them to reveal through discovery that his anthem protests were the cause of him not being signed. But then---that's what everyone already thinks anyway. The people who defend not signing him because they don't like anthem protests say that, and the people who defend his protests say that. So where is the revelation? We all already know that.

And of course, he couldn't get them to sign him as a result of the suit. So much so that he never aimed at doing that.

So he CAN'T "challenge" the efforts of the league to not sign him for protesting during the anthem. What "challenge?" All he could get would be compensation for lost contract money, and that is IF...and ONLY IF...he could prove they colluded.

...

[dieterbrock]

Follow arguments better, dude.
....

You are seriously the most worthless poster I have ever seen. I guess that’s why you get banned from everywhere and your site was an epic failure.

[R4L]

You are seriously the most worthless poster I have ever seen. I guess that’s why you get banned from everywhere and your site was an epic failure.

I figured he'd drop out once he started looking stupid. Then i figured he was done after avenger proved him wrong. But of course now that's not what he's saying. We all took him wrong

[St. Loser Fan]

Did any part of this lawsuit explicitly request/demand that Kaepernick (and others) have the right to protest without facing repercussions?

[AvengerRam]

Did any part of this lawsuit explicitly request/demand that Kaepernick (and others) have the right to protest without facing repercussions?

Of course not. The NFL and its teams are private entities and, as such, are not subject to First Amendment free speech law and its related remedies.

A private employee who wishes to challenge what he believes to be repercussions resulting from speech (i.e. a protest) has only a few options. One would be a breach of contract (if, for example, the employer were to terminate the employee citing "cause" and a protest does not fit the contract's definition of that term). Another would be discrimination/retaliation area, if the protest was regarding discriminatory treatment of the employee himself. Neither of these two angles were available to CK (because he was not cut/fired, and his protests were not about discrimination by the NFL or any of its teams).

That's where the collusion theory comes into play. Because NFL teams are independent entities, the collective bargaining agreement prohibits them from colluding against a player. Of course, that's not an absolute prohibition, as the league, in a sense, can "collude" when it comes to disciplinary matters (i.e. the league can suspend a player for violating the substance policy and all 32 teams honor that suspension). In this case, though, the allegation was that the teams colluded due to CK's political protests/activism, which is not among the disciplinary matters over which the NFL/teams may act collectively.

The NFL/teams, of course, countered that CK was not signed due to consensus, not collusion (and many would assert that his protests were not relevant, as they either didn't need a QB, had better QBs than CK, didn't want to pay CK's price, or just don't think he's a very good player).

Thus, the collusion theory became the means used by CK to keep his protest in the public eye (as he no longer has access to the sideline during the National Anthem). That is, until he reached a private settlement which, as is typically the case in civil disputes, reduced the matter to dollars and cents.

[BobCarl]

Of course not. The NFL and its teams are private entities and, as such, are not subject to First Amendment free speech law and its related remedies.

. That's a bit ambiguous.

For a certaintity the first five words of the first amendment has nothing to do with the issue between the two parties.

Nevertheless neither of those parties leaves their First Amendment protections at the stadium door when they go inside. Outlying yet exclusive issues have arisen. When the San Francisco Police department threatened to get involved and withdraw their protective services the First Amendment issue was very much applicable. The police officers smartly decided to not influence the issue.

[AvengerRam]

. That's a bit ambiguous.

For a certaintity the first five words of the first amendment has nothing to do with the issue between the two parties.

Nevertheless neither of those parties leaves their First Amendment protections at the stadium door when they go inside. Outlying yet exclusive issues have arisen. When the San Francisco Police department threatened to get involved and withdraw their protective services the First Amendment issue was very much applicable. The police officers smartly decided to not influence the issue.

I was referring to the context of a dispute between Kaepernick and the NFL/teams. Any effort to sue the NFL or any franchise under the First Amendment would be dismissed, as private entities are not arms of "the State."

[St. Loser Fan]

So Kaepernick wasn't suing because he felt his rights were being violated? So what was his lawsuit about?

[AvengerRam]

So Kaepernick wasn't suing because he felt his rights were being violated? So what was his lawsuit about?

Sigh.

Of course he felt that "his rights were being violated." What he did not know is what legal theory would provide him with a vehicle to try to vindicate what he believed to be "his rights." The lawyers, understanding which legal theories might apply to the facts and which would not, undoubtedly came up with the collusion angle.