Yes, The NFL Protests Are Constitutional Protected Speech

I May Not Care About Football, But I Do Care About The Players' Constitutional Right To Protest

While you can be on the "Blue Lives Matter" side of the debate, you can't take away anyone's constitutional right to peaceful protest.

223
views

Football season kicked off last week, and the same people burning their Nike sneakers on Youtube are already protesting the sport. I suppose it's to be expected, given that NFL players are still kneeling during the "National Anthem" as a means of protesting police brutality.

And listen, I understand that some people are taking their actions personally. They're interpreting the players' protests as insults against cops and veterans everywhere, a middle finger to the entire country.

Personally, I don't believe that's what NFL players intend when they kneel. They're looking to rid the United States of injustice, and they're entitled to do that — just like you're entitled to dislike it. I'm not here to tell you who's right or wrong in this debate.

But here's the thing. While you can be on the Blue Lives Matter side of the debate, you can't take away anyone's constitutional right to peaceful protest — no matter how strong your beliefs.

The United States Constitution explicitly states within its First Amendment that Congress will "make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And if the Constitution can't be tweaked to prevent a problem as massive as daily shootings, I don't think we should be rewriting it for something as sensible as freedom of speech.

NFL players harm no one by kneeling during the "National Anthem." Sure, you might get a wedgie from having your panties in such a bunch, but that won't do any lasting damage. And let's be honest, shall we? This country has much bigger problems than a few grown men opting out of a for-show tradition.

Even actual veterans, people who have fought and watched their comrades die for this country, have spoken out about the NFL protests. They've defended the players' rights to kneel because that's exactly the freedom hey fought for in the first place.

And if veterans aren't complaining, I can't see why someone who spends their time burning perfectly good clothing attire should be.

So, go ahead. Protest the NFL. Starbucks is still serving coffee, and tickets for "Hamilton" are still too expensive to purchase (seriously, I'm the one who should be upset here, folks). I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the NFL players on the field this year will still be tossing that ball around next year, too.

Popular Right Now

As A Female Christian Millennial, I Fully Support Alabama's Abortion Ban Because I Know God Would, Too

A life always has worth, no matter the circumstances.

11866
views

Alabama's state legislature passed a bill on May 14, 2019 that makes it illegal for abortions to be performed past six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who are caught violating the law could be sentenced up to 99 years in prison. The bill is the strictest anti-abortion bill to date this year as states try to pass laws to challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

While the law does allow an exception to women whose lives are at risks, it does not allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. I support Alabama's new law, and I applaud them for their efforts to protect the rights of unborn children.

As a Christian, I believe that life is a precious gift from God and should be treated with care.

The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said the second greatest rule was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39-40). I believe this applies to every person born and unborn. But, even from a secular perspective, there are reasons that support an unborn child's right to life. Let's break down two of the most important components of the bill: abortion itself and the case of rape and incest.

A big argument in the debate is whether a baby is alive before it is born or only after it is born.

I believe can be explained and answered with simple medical science. In the medical profession, a person is pronounced dead when there is no more activity in the brain, known as brain-dead.

At that point, they consider there to be no more life in the body.

The opposite of death is life, so if you have electrical signals still coursing through your brain, then you are alive. A fetus begins to have electrical activity in its brain at six weeks. Most women do not find out they are pregnant until around that time, so by the time they decide to have an abortion, the baby, by all medical accounts, is alive.

Another indicator of whether a person is dead or dying is their pulse.

The pulse is how many times a person's heart beats per minute. If a person does not have a pulse, they will more than likely die if their heart cannot be resuscitated because no oxygen is getting to their brain.

Medical personnel does everything they can to start a person's heart back because they know that the heart is key to life.

A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks old, again before the mother knows she is pregnant and can choose to have an abortion. Since the United States' justice system upholds that killing a person is wrong, then shouldn't killing a baby, who is alive, be wrong too? I think this is plenty of proof that aborting a baby is killing a living person and is therefore wrong.

Rape and incest are two horrible acts that should be punished. It is never the victim's or conceived a child's fault in the situation.

Given the reasons above for why abortion is wrong, I also believe, while both crimes are horrendous, that abortion is still not the answer to this problem. I do understand, however, that women, because of the traumatic experience or other reasons, may not be able to care for the child.

As such, I am an advocate for adoption.

There are many couples out there who cannot have children on their own who would love to adopt. In order, for this to be a viable option, though, Congress needs to make amendments to adoption laws.

Adoption is outrageously expensive, much more costly than an abortion, and is a long and tedious process.

Though the laws are in place so that not just anybody can adopt a child, the government still could stand to relax laws a little. Another option could be to offer aid to those who wish to adopt specifically to cover adoption expenses or to only those who meet certain requirements. If we want to protect unborn children, we must give women and families more viable options.

I know that my views are not popular, but God did not call us to be popular, He called us to be His disciples.

I will not compromise my convictions because I am in the minority. I support the women who have to face this dilemma, and I pray that they and our government officials make the right decisions and aid these women and families in need of help.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Don't Count Out Gronk From Coming Back

While some may think Rob Gronkowski has hung up his cleats for good, I think he still has more left in the tank.

304
views

Rob Gronkowski, better known as "Gronk" former Patriots Tight End, announced his retirement at the end of this last season after the Patriots won the Super Bowl. Gronk's agent, Drew Rosenhaus told Peter King that it wouldn't shock him if Gronkowski decided to come back before the year is over. We have been made aware that the wear and tear on Gronk's body has worn him down through the years. However, maybe after several months off for some R&R;, he might be persuaded to come back sometime during next season.

At 29 years old, Rob is still very young so it wouldn't be out of the question to rule out a return to the NFL entirely. If Tom Brady is struggling without his big target and expresses this to Gronk, it would be a real possibility he would return to help out his former teammates.

We have seen it been done before, football players coming back to the NFL after retiring. The most recent of examples is Jason Witten, the former Pro-Bowler announced earlier this year he is coming back to the NFL after spending 1 year on Monday Night Football as an analyst.

Another recent example is Marshawn Lynch, the running back retired at 29 years old which is longer than the usual shelf life of most running backs in the NFL. After retirement, he requested that the Seattle Seahawks trade his rights to the Raiders so he could come back to the NFL but with a new uniform.

Of course, Gronk is enjoying his retirement as of now, he definitely has the personality of the life of the party. It's not uncommon to see videos of him dancing of at parties on different platforms of social media.

While I don't like the Patriots, and how annoying it was to see Brady and Gronk march down the field, he was a top-tier athlete. Gronk made a great decision to go out after a Super Bowl win, and seeing his competitive nature, I don't think he would have it any other way. We will have to wait and see, but I think there is a real chance that we haven't seen the last of Gronk suiting up and taking the field.

Related Content

Facebook Comments