Officials protesting anthem–SCHSL speaks

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Let's get a quick primer on the first amendment: it says CONGRESS shall make no law... Now, over time, that has been interpreted (wrongly in my view) to other government entities such as school districts by way of the 14th amendment. Without going into a lot of detail, the gist is this: the state can't punish you for what you say. The top tier of "protected" speech is political speech, but religious, commercial, personal, etc. is equally protected. Some argue, incorrectly, that "hate" speech isn't protected, but it is just like anything else. Also, actions such as flag burning have been protected under the first amendment. This is another bizarre, and incorrectly decided, case on the supreme court.

Even with protected speech, there can be time, place, and manner restrictions that are constitutional. Public schools are public property, but I can't go in there and start putting campaign signs up or start selling t-shirts without the school's permission. Even the kids can't disrupt the classroom just to say what they think. There's no issue in the school regulating things like this.

In general, government employees can be so regulated. A bailiff in a courtroom, for example, is going to get fired if he interrupts a trial telling everyone why they should vote for _____. He's in a public place but he doesn't have complete free speech rights.

We are there to officiate the game -- no more or no less. If you want to protest, go buy a ticket. State and assigning bodies are perfectly able to restrict ANY conduct by the contractors they hire to officiate. We're going to be in for a long night if a partner of mine tries to pull a stunt like this. I can't believe this so-called organization is telling people what they have to do in order to protest. Tell them they can't and if they can't handle that, then they are free to do other things.

Gotta disagree here a little . The First Amendment applies to the States by incorporation. Framers of the 14th Amendment believed it incorporated the first eight amendments. The ironic thing is that many States argued against the Bill of Rights because they believed the States adequately protected the rights of thee individuals. Free speech principles applied long before the Constitution was ratified. I have spent nearly 37 years in the military. Do I like flag burning? Nope. But the Supreme Court was not wrong in their flag burning decision. There were plenty of forms of protest including tea protests in Boston and Charleston.. There are stories of burning British flags during the revolution. At least one without suggested in 1799 that free speech included all expressions.

I would question whether their policy is a reasonable time place manner restriction or if it is impermissible because it is content based rextriction ( don't think it falls under content neutral because it directly applies to national anthem protests) I wonder what if it would withstand strict scrutiny. I wonder what the compelling governmental interests would be...I don't see how this incites a riot...

By the nature of contracts they can decide to use but really can't control how we officiate games.. The more control they exert the more officials look like employees.

That being said, with every right there is an equally important responsibility. Too often people want to exercise rights at when it is inappropriate. High School Sports isn't the right venue for these types of protests but that me...

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

The First Amendment applies to the States by incorporation. Framers of the 14th Amendment believed it incorporated the first eight amendments.

The constitutional history is a bit more complex than that. In the post-14th era, arguments were made that certain rights set out in the Bill of Rights were inherently part of the meaning of equal protection under the 14th. As I recall, that often came to the courts in the context of discrimination, making it easier to argue that it was within the scope of the 14th. Over time that grew to essentially all of the rights among the first 8.*

Whether referees could be precluded from protesting during the course of their refereeing responsibilities is an interesting constitutional question that would turn on a variety of details.

Who is making the rule? If it is the independent referee association, it is a very different analysis than if a public school is doing it. (And there are lots of cases about what schools can and cannot do in the context of free speech and expressive action.)

Is the referee an employee of the public school? The state as employer often has broader ability to control behavior in the context of employment than of an employee in off hours.

Heck, if I was teaching Constitutional Law in Law school right now, I'd probably use this scenario in my final exam . . . and I am going to send it as a possible discussion topic to a friend who teaches a high school constitutional law class . . .
_________
*I'm too lazy to look it up, but I have a vague recollection that there are actually a couple of rights *not* incorporated. I believe grand jury is one.