With a change or two this protest could probably have had whole teams showing support for this cause. A protest need not be decisive, being inclusive makes it stronger. Kneeling before the anthem, and stating the reason was, a desire for change on how Black men are treated by police, could have been something the majority of players and teams could get behind. Before someone says protests need not be changed, remember the initial form of protest was changed from sitting to kneeling because the topic of disrespect was brought forth.

In my opinion, playing a game and being entertainment does not make NFL players special, when it comes to an employer/employee relationship, in the workplace. Realistically, not many places of business would allow a public display of protest in the workplace during work hours. Fewer still, if it was thought that the protest was costing that business money. As to free speech, that is curtailed in the workplace all the time. The use of profanity, derogatory language, jokes, slurs is cause for dismissal or a trip to HR in many workplaces. 

Those that see player are more than employees because they are essential to the business need to explain how all other employees are different. Without good employees business' do not often succeed .If this issue is a strong one for the NFLPA they should put their money where their mouth is. A strong union can fight for what the majority of the members feel is his or her rights. Walk out and strike if this issue, right to show public protest at work, is as important as some people who are not the players deem it. 

----------------------------------------------------

That is because it is specified in the work contract between employer and employee that these things are not acceptable in your place of work. If you take the job, you sign the contract and agree to that code of conduct.

Clearly, the NFL did not have such a rule in place, which is why they've changed the contract. But you can't change the agreement without both parties consenting. And so the freedom of speech is stepped on in, what seems to me, a manner with no legal justification.

Besides, your opinion that being entertainment does not make NFL players special is clearly flawed. The closest relations we have to the situation of the NFL and its players is the relationship between other major leagues and their players. They all have collective bargaining agreements. These things don't commonly exist in normal employer/employee relationships. Strange that.

 

------------------

A protest tends to occur when the majority are not interested in hearing about the problem. If the majority were all over the problem, there would be no need for a protest. I don't know about you, but I feel mistreatment of people by police according to the colour of their skin is wrong, no matter what the majority feel about the subject.

I would hope the, "I don't know about you" was not to insinuate that to disagree with the venue of a protest means a person can not support the reason for the protest. I think in a previous post I agreed that some police behavior is disgusting and that protests are a positive step to change it.

-------------------

Not true. If a private company fires you for your religion, it's a first amendment issue. Nothing to do with government. Why is it any different for freedom of expression?

I do actually agree with your point that the protest could be have been more effective if they had got everyone on board in one go, though I think this perhaps meanders into the realm of the ideal.

I'm guessing that Kaepernick's original action was somewhat spontaneous. With hindsight, yes, it might have been more effective had it been more planned -- but in a way it gives it more credibility that it wasn't planned and seemed to come straight from the heart, without recourse to legal counsel or a planning committee of oversight.

My point about the majority bit, was that you seemed to make an equivalence between those protesting and those who oppose the protestors, saying that each side wants to demonize the other. Your suggested alternative was that both sides look to a majority preference. But I contend that there is not equivalence here between those two parties. Those protesting were doing so against a perceived injustice, not seeking to demonize a political spectrum or a strata of society. If this justice does indeed exist, then there is no need to seek a majority opinion. In such a case, the injustice needs to be redressed (and attention to the problem needs to be raised until such redress occurs), no matter what the majority of opinion is. Sometimes majority opinion is in direct contravention of what is morally right.

Right or wrong, as a business the most important colour to the NFL is green. That is the colour that influenced the rule change. It was a compromise, maybe not a good one for either side of the issue .If it costs the NFL more than it makes that rule will change in a heartbeat.