There were a number of places to express an opinion concerning this fellow in San Francisco who refused to stand for the national anthem. He was apparently expressing his dismay about "bodies in the streets" or some such nonsense. Perhaps he should get his nose out of his playbook and his ass to Chicago on a warm weekend. Then, we could have something to agree about.
This is a busy weekend, and eschewing the argument, aside from a well-placed "Dick move" on several posts was advised. And it is a dick move. But...
One friend was involved in a discussion with some like-minded friends of his, expressing a different "take." Aside from the usual drivel, someone made mention of the individual's "First Amendment" rights in light of the firestorm of criticism energizing social media. I would have to friend this...legal eagle...in order to make the following point. That's silly, though. I'll make it here.
Let's read the First Amendment, shall we?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law. Not "Jim Greer shall express no opinion..." This football player is free to express his opinion and be free from governmental sanction. The 49ers (who appear to be a corporation) have a contract with him, the terms and conditions of which may restrict some behaviors outside of the control of government.
But, the First Amendment does not act to prevent, abridge or limit the cascade of criticism from individuals heaping on this clown. Neither does it suggest that telling him "It isn't illegal, but you're a giant child for doing it. You should stand up." is inappropriate because...you know...the First Amendment. It prohibits the government from messing with him.
Okay, enough horseback riding for one day.