How is the NFL fining players for free speech legal?

broadway joe · Oct 26, 2008

I think there should be a constitutional amendment against making the same point about free speech over and over again on the same thread.

Point of Order · Oct 26, 2008

i'm just practicing for my con law exam.

broadway joe · Oct 26, 2008

Point of Order said:

i'm just practicing for my con law exam.
Click to expand...

Cool. I'm just being sarcastic.

Trouser_Buddah · Oct 26, 2008

schiezainc said:

Starman said:

buckweaver said:

Same reason a copy editor can get reprimanded for putting up an Obama or McCain button at their desk.

It ain't legal. But who's going to stop it?
Click to expand...

No, it's perfectly legal.

Burress has the legal right to say whatever he wants, and you have the right to put a campaign button on your desk. The employer has no legal obligation to pay you for doing so.

Especially not in the case of Burress, whose legal representatives (the NFLPA) have freely agreed to restrictions on those rights in exchange for other considerations ($$$$$).
Click to expand...

Ok, how about this scenerio.

Let's say Burress really wanted to vent and scream about the refs but didn't want to pay the fine. He holds a press conference where he says "I have nothing to say yet." and his wife (or friend) gets up and rips into the refs, clearly expressing Burress' beliefs.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous hypothetical...

qtlaw · Oct 26, 2008

Point of Order said:

schiezainc said:

Ok, I've never covered a pro beat and I'm not very familiar with the NFL's code of conduct or what type of contracts these players play for, but I just noticed that Plaxico Burress got hit with a $20K fine for "inappropriate comments after the game on officiating."

Maybe you guys could explain it, but I've always wondered how this was legal. Is there some kind of NFL rule that prohibits this and, if so, couldn't a player simply refuse to pay this and sue the league for supressing their First Amendment rights?

Just seems to me that this is clearly illegal. Maybe I'm in the minority.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Not a bad explanation but that's a constitutional analysis when there is a government actor. the NFL is not an arm of the government.

The only analysis would be is there some sort of wrongful discrimination here (religious, race, sex, age, etc.)? If not, the NFL and its owners are free to discipline as they see fit, unless its in violation of a collective bargaining agreement.

forever_town · Oct 27, 2008

Point of Order said:

schiezainc said:

Ok, I've never covered a pro beat and I'm not very familiar with the NFL's code of conduct or what type of contracts these players play for, but I just noticed that Plaxico Burress got hit with a $20K fine for "inappropriate comments after the game on officiating."

Maybe you guys could explain it, but I've always wondered how this was legal. Is there some kind of NFL rule that prohibits this and, if so, couldn't a player simply refuse to pay this and sue the league for supressing their First Amendment rights?

Just seems to me that this is clearly illegal. Maybe I'm in the minority.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thorough interpretation.

You're not Ed Hochuli by any chance, are you?

Starman · Oct 27, 2008

broadway joe said:

I think there should be a constitutional amendment against making the same point about free speech over and over again on the same thread.
Click to expand...

You say you'll change the Constitution, well, you know,
We'd all love to change your head.
You think you'll change the institutions, well, you know,
You better free your mind instead.

dooley_womack1 · Oct 27, 2008

My favorite part of this thread: Someone of gingerbread's stature dropping a "just sayin' " into a post. About time someone who wasn't a looser used the catchphrase[/selfdepracation]

Log in or Sign up

How is the NFL fining players for free speech legal?

broadway joe Guest

Point of Order Active Member

broadway joe Guest

Trouser_Buddah Active Member

qtlaw Well-Known Member

forever_town Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

How is the NFL fining players for free speech legal?

broadway joe Guest

Point of Order Active Member

broadway joe Guest

Trouser_Buddah Active Member

qtlaw Well-Known Member

forever_town Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches