Here's what I don't get:

 

Many conservatives, including quite a few self-identified ones on this board, freak out and throw fits when a college, school, organization, whatever, restricts the First Amendment rights of groups that want to publicly espouse positions on things like marriage, abortion, racial issues, climate control, whatever, that might be unpopular with other groups. Fair enough, and I agree. In a public setting, all Americans have the right to be heard, whether you agree with it or not.

 

What confuses me is that when athletes choose to use their position of prominence, as Colin Kapernick and now other NFLers have, plus athletes in other sports, to comment on something in an unpopular fashion, suddenly their freedom of speech is secondary to blind nationalism? I'm not defending Kap or any of the others. I think their method of demonstrating is counter-productive and shifts the discussion away from the one we need to have into something else. The broader question is why it's ok to shred athletes for taking advantage of their First Amendment rights in an unpopular way, but it's then fine to shout at those you disagree with for unfairly restricting the First Amendment rights of people and groups you do agree with?

 

In some strange, twisted way, isn't sitting down during the national anthem the most powerful use of the First Amendment available to professional athletes? Why should their First Amendment rights be subjugated to a song?

---