How is the NFL fining players for free speech legal?

That's jelly donut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner

 

I think I might have just fallen in love

 

Is it any coincidence that the Browns also released a second reason for his suspension: His verbal abuse of a PR flak? In light of his appeal being heard Tuesday, it was very interesting that the team revealed that bit of information.

Teams have every right to fine or suspend players because of the deal the NFLPA agreed to. So does the NFL. Doesn't mean the teams or the league can't get hit for it by the public at large.

 

Unsuspended but still not playing today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_browns_winslow_1

Now the Brownies can turn to a legitimate problem in their locker room --- the unusually high number of MRSA cases. They've supposedly redone the locker room but still have MRSA problems. Maybe their team doctor needs a swift kick in the hind end.

 

The right of free speech is constitutionally protected. That means the only the government is prohibited from taking steps to curb your rights. Your boss can do any damn thing he wants. I thought this was covered after the John Rocker thing.

 

To cross-thread for a minute, this is a perfect example of when a formal journalism education can trump on-the-job training.

I was required to take communications law as an undergrad and again as a grad student. I took a third, more in-depth class because of my interest in the subject. Knowledge of the First Amendment is the foundation of those courses.

You can poo-poo the concept of j-school all you want, but at least it keeps me from looking stupid on a message board of journalists.

 

You have a point, Cadet, but I'd hope we are still properly teaching the Bill of Rights in high school (and before).

 

To be fair, I don't think any amount of schooling would help schiezainc in that respect.

 

Oh shit. You mean it's not looking good that I told my boss to go fuck himself and there was nothing he could do about it because I was exercising my First Amendment rights?

D'oh

 

There are some areas that I would agree with you on this point, but there are plenty of people without journalism degrees that know better than schiez on this point, myself included.

 

College won't always save you on that end:

And this is pretty interesting in its own right, not only for what Americans don't know, but also for the newspaper questions: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/SOFA2008survey.pdf

 

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech. To the extent not violative of a fundamental property or liberty interests, private parties are generally allowed to contract away rights they would otherwise possess. For example, restraint-of-trade agreements (no-compete clauses) and confidential settlement agreements have routinely been enforced even though they restrict what are otherwise fundamental rights.

Presumably the ability to fine players for criticism of refs is covered in NFL policy, which the players assent to when they join the League. Therefore, by some general principle recognized by contract law, the players have agreed to abide by the NFL policy. However, a court could refuse to enforce such an agreement if it was an unconstitutional violation of a fundamental right.

A court would probably not find the fine referenced above unconstitutional. First, a court should look at the whether the NFL has a legitimate interests in not having their officials publicly criticized by players. Second, a court would probably look at the nature of the speech -- whether narrowly tailored or broadly prohibitive -- being abridged by the contract. Finally, a court should look at whether the party abridging the speech is a public institution or a private organization. A private organization not directed by any government entity should be allowed more deference in its policies than a state actor.

The League has a strong interests in not having their refs criticized because they want the perception of respect for the legitimacy for the outcomes of their games. Here the nature of the speech is narrowly focused on criticism of officials; it is not a broad prohibition of speech. Finally, the NFL is a private organization and not a state actor.

So, the players freely contracted away their right to criticize NFL officials. Furthermore, the League has a strong interest in prohibiting (or at least penalizing) this type of speech. The type of speech being prohibited is narrowly confined to the criticism of refs. Finally, the NFL is not a state actor. Because these factors favor the enforcement of the agreement, a court would probably not find the fine referenced above unconstitutional.