Tennessee Politicians Ask State Colleges To Forbid Student-Athletes From Kneeling During The National Anthem

from the let's-just-keep-setting-civil-rights-back dept

Is it too late to force Tennessee to secede from the Union and become some sort of free-floating non-nation we can freely raid to shore up our non-wartime stockpiles of tobacco and country music?

To be fair, I'll list Tennessee's positives first. Within the last year, a court struck down a law that forbade the use of entertaining hyperbole by political candidates, and legislators finally passed an anti-SLAPP law with teeth -- the latter of which should head off bullshit like someone suing a reporter for things someone else said.

On the other hand, legislators continue to ignore its position as a backwater state in terms of internet access. And legislators are still doing extremely stupid things, like asking federal legislators to bypass the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent to jail people for burning the flag.

Here's the latest broadside against constitutional rights and common sense, via pretty much every member of Tennessee's Republican leadership. Let's go direct to the source of this hideousness, who provides the question this legislative bullshit begs:

If you can't see the tweet, Tennessee-located First Amendment warrior Daniel Horwitz asks:

"Hey Alexa, how do you lose judgment on the pleadings?"

Here's what Tennessee Republicans are demanding [PDF]:

In light of recent news reports, we want to address the issue of our student athletes kneeling during the National Anthem prior to sports competitions. The National Anthem is a symbol of pride for America. It lifts our spirits toward the ideals upon which our great country was founded: that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Written during the Battle of Baltimore, the National Anthem represents not only the freedoms we enjoy as Americans but the ultimate sacrifice paid by many in order for us to enjoy those freedoms.

One of those "freedoms" would be the freedom to criticize their government, their nation, the things it stands for, etc. But whatever.

During athletic competitions, our student athletes represent not only themselves, but also our universities and all the citizens of this state, many of whom view this form of protest as offensive and disrespectful the very thing our National Anthem represents.

Shorter Tennessee reps: we will allow the hecklers to veto this freedom.

While we recognize our student athletes may express their own views on a variety of issues in their personal time, we do not condone any form of protest that could be viewed as disrespectful to our nation or flag while they are representing our state universities. When they don the jersey of a Tennessee university, they step out of their personal roles and into the roles of an ambassador for our state. We expect all those who walk onto the field of play to show respect for our National Anthem.

This is an expectation you can't demand. Even if they refuse to kneel, you can't make them "respect" the National Anthem. Respect is earned. It can't be mandated.

To address this issue, we encourage each of you to adopt policies within your respective athletic departments to prohibit any such actions moving forward. We view this as a teachable moment in which administrators may listen to concem from students but also exercise leadership in stating unequivocally what the National Anthem means to this nation and explain proper times, places, and manners for expressing protest. While we work together to make Tennessee a better place for all our citizens, let's not focus on what divides us but on what unites us which is being an American.

Ah. A "teachable moment." In this context, it means "teaching" students who are upset with the status quo to suck it up and get it up any time the flag appears and its theme music starts playing. It means ignoring responses that don't align with Team USA jingoism in order to "unite" everyone under the state Republicans' idea of what's acceptable behavior by student-athletes.

And it's clear that any time people like this refer to "divisiveness," they're only concerned that people don't share their views, rather than seeking a way to engage honestly with people whose viewpoints differ from theirs. The nation may be divided, but it can only be united under this plan, which would force everyone to revere the flag the way these ass-hats would prefer they do.

Nice work, reps. How did you say you like your mockery? Relentless? Good. Let the shit hit your fans, you insufferable losers.

That being said, this won't necessarily be an easy thing to prevent. The government stepping in to tell student-athletes how they can behave is on the wrong side of the Constitution, considering these universities are publicly funded.

On the other hand, courts have given some leeway to schools to add additional rights restrictions to extracurricular activities, which means they may be allowed to tell students how to behave during sportsball games, even if they can't restrict their speech elsewhere. Sports participation is voluntary and generally comes with strings attached.

But Horwitz isn't wrong. This certainly won't be an easy case for the government to win if this flag-molesting, masturbatorial fantasy becomes a reality. Criticism of the government tends to receive the most First Amendment protection and taking a knee during the anthem cannot possibly be seen as anything other than criticism.

Of course, the universities are free to politely decline this ridiculous request. But it would be so much better if they'd send a message of their own stating that they respect their students' rights far more than they respect pandering to the worst aspect of state politicians' voter bases.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, civil rights, free speech, grandstanding politicians, kneeling, protests, sports, students, tennessee


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 28 Feb 2021 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: With first paragraph, you express desire to restrict spe

    By the way: long ago I stated Maz should restrict fanboy speech
    to civil, and with my ally AdSense FORCED it on Techdirt! -- Yes, you kids now can't use the vile words you want to express complete disagreement with that, because if do you risk AdSense again with-holding payments from a "dangerous and derogatory" site!

    Actually, neither the rules of discourse here nor the discourse itself have changed. Yes, AdSense did threaten to/did pull ads from articles with, shall we say for the sake of argument, less-than-civil comments, but no actual changes to the moderation policies nor the comments themselves actually occurred because of that. If I wanted to call you a fuckwit Nazi terrorist pedophile motherfucker or something and say that you’re better off killing yourself, the repercussions I would get if I did so now would be no different than if I had before that whole thing happened. Now, I would never do that, and I wouldn’t say that there’d be no consequences, but the fact is that those consequences would have nothing to do with that event.

    You've not grasped that the corporate control of speech that you long advocated applies to you too!

    Actually, yes we do. We just don’t whine about it or say that the law should be changed to stop it or claim that the law doesn’t protect it or anything like that.

    Google has, and should have, every legal right to not put ads on articles if they or their comments sections are disagreeable to them or not put ads on this site at all if they don’t want to. They may threaten or actually use that power to put pressure on Techdirt to remove offending content, and that’s perfectly legal and should be outside of certain circumstances not at all relevant here. Techdirt can choose to cave, negotiate, push back, and/or find an alternative source of revenue, like soliciting and displaying ads without AdSense. What Google cannot do is moderate content on this site directly; only Techdirt is legally free to directly moderate (or not moderate) the actual content on this site as it wishes.

    We are all well aware of these facts and their potential consequences.

    No more will Timothy Geigner, aka Dark Helmet, target me out of the blue with unprovoked racist textual assaults such as this:

    "There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."

    1) That was, like, a decade ago. It was also an isolated case that has never repeated itself at all. Why do you still insist on whining about it? Just let it go already. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    2) As was explained to you then and many times since then, that was not actually a statement referring to you. Geigner was just spamming quotes from Obama’s book in response to you repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum. They were not intended to have any actual meaning whatsoever. They were chosen at random, and most of them made no sense as an actual response to what was said before. That you found one of them offensive and misinterpreted it as referring to you is irrelevant and was pure chance.

    3) I’m not sure that it is racist, but not having read the context of that in the actual book it was pulled from, it’s hard for me to say for sure either way.

    Heh, heh. Go on, "prove" to me that you CAN write that!

    Okay. Fine. It’s not something I’d normally say, but you did literally ask for this:

    There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you.

    There. I wrote it. So what?

    In fact, you kinda undermined your own point by writing it yourself. You may claim that you were just quoting someone else, but so was Geigner at the time.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.