Sports
See other Sports Articles
Title: ‘Goodbye Pittsburgh Steelers, Burn In Hell’: Angry Fans Burn Gear Over National Anthem Protest
Source:
CBS Pittsburgh
URL Source: http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017 ... urn-gear-over-national-anthem/
Published: Sep 25, 2017
Author: staff
Post Date: 2017-09-25 16:34:46 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 11383
Comments: 57
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Pittsburgh Steelers fans are taking to social media to show how upset they are that the team stayed inside during the national anthem. Fans have posted numerous videos on social media of themselves burning their Steelers gear. “I’m a lifelong Steelers fan, not anymore. Not a fan of you, the NFL, any of it,” says Jim Heaney on YouTube. Heaney posted the video of himself setting all of his Steelers gear on fire following the team’s decision to decide to stay inside the locker room/tunnel during the national anthem. “And I hope all your ignorance burns too,” Heaney says as he throws his Steelers gear on the fire. Heaney ends his video by saying, “there you go, goodbye Pittsburgh Steelers, burn in hell, Semper Fi.” In another video posted to YouTube, Robert Williams of Texas posted a video of himself burning hundreds of dollars in Steelers gear. “We have morals in this country. We stand for this country. My great uncle’s bones are lying in the bottom of Pearl Harbor. For this country, for the flag, for your freedom to play in the NFL and to say whatever you want to say. But you do not disrespect the flag and the country and the Constitution. So watch this stuff burn,” Williams says. — Starving1 (@ArvinGibbs) September 24, 2017 In a video posted to Twitter, and shared more than 15,000 times, Arvin Gibbs is seen on video burning a Steelers sweatshirt and hat, while holding an American flag. “Super Bowl right? As if I care, what I care about is this country, what I care about is freedom, and it’s all about those stars and stripes,” Williams says. “Never again will waste one minute of my life following the NFL or the Pittsburgh Steelers,” another YouTube video user says. “I am no longer am a Steelers fan or of anyone that will not stand for our anthem no matter your political views or color of your skin. I hope your sport goes up in flames like my shirt did,” says Christos Kallas. “Today after 30 years of loving the Pittsburgh Steelers I’m going burn my Steelers jersey . They have taken a great American sport that people use to forget there problems with and turned it into a political circus that disrespects our Country and our Military that gave there lives for your freedom,” posted YouTube user Michael Hesson. The protest was also the main topic of discussion on 93-7 The Fan Monday morning. “They announced that the Steelers previously weren’t going to come on the field for the national anthem. When they came on the field, the whole bar booed, the whole single bar,” said one caller. “I actually got up and left I was so upset.” Head coach Mike Tomlin, who stood on the sideline without his team, said the team made the decision during a meeting on Saturday. Lisa Washington’s Report: Some fans believe the Steelers’ organization will suffer because of the action. “I don’t think the Steelers are going take a long-term hit,” said another caller. “I think it will be temporary hit, maybe the next couple of games. I think people will talk about it, but if they start winning, if they start producing, it will blow over, because as we know in this country, winning cures all.” Some fans said they supported Alejandro Villanueva, Steelers offensive tackle and a former U.S. Army Ranger. He stood near the tunnel Sunday during the National Anthem, with his hand over his heart. His teammates stood behind him. “Al Villanueva, he knows the real meaning of teamwork because he led men in combat,” said one caller. “He’s probably saying to himself, what am I doing with this group of people?” . . . Poster Comment: At least one famous Steelers fan is swearing off the team: Rush Limbaugh, a huge Steelers fan for decades. The mystique is gone. That actually started vanishing a while ago. The larger-than-life aspect of it is gone. The belief, the wish, the desire that the people in the game were the best and brightest and special, and that’s why they were there, that’s gone. And it’s been politicized. It has been politicized and corrupted, and it didn’t start this weekend. It started years ago. And if I wanted to, I could go back and get the transcripts from a few years ago on this program where I first sensed that this was happening and was going to happen. Of course, years ago I couldn’t predict this specific event, but my sadness actually began years ago when all of the attention focused on the danger and the supposed attempt to hide all of that, not specifically just the concussions. The whole aura that that created. The sports media began to criticize that which they report on. It just became politicized. It simply just became politicized. And the people politicizing it, since we’re talking about politics, the people that politicized it are people on the left. And when that happens, things change. It’s just over.
I have been a Steelers fan since 1966, but no more. pic.twitter.com/9W4oMl1EhF
(1 image)
The comments section is very angry stuff. But who knows how many actual Steelers fans will take the pledge. Even so, that is brutal reporting for a team like Steelers to see in a local TV station. But if you’ll permit me first, I was personally saddened. I did not watch the National Football League yesterday, and it was the first time in 45 years that I made an active decision not to watch, including my team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. It was not a decision made in anger. It was genuine sadness. I realized that I can no longer look at this game and watch this game and study this game and pretend, you know, fantasize, everything a fan does. This whole thing has removed for me the ingredients that are in the recipe that make up a fan.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Public relations expertise has never been a requirement to play pro-football before this year! They tried to handle a sensitive public situation wisely but muffed it up. How surprising is that? They're football players, not politicians!
Does the public even have a clear idea of what they're protesting? I don't. It could be several things. Who knows what they're really protesting at this point? I'm not sure even they know. But they're definitely going to take it out on that darned anthem and flag. 'Cause that'll show Whitey.
Kaepernick was protesting perceived oppression. His protest was directed at the nation and national symbols. As far as I can tell, he never identified his perceived oppression with any national agency, official, or employee. His protest was aimed at the flag and the natioal anthem, on the field and in uniform, because unity. The more current protests never focused on Kaepernick's protest. They lody the original vague focus and focused on Kaepernick not being employed by any team. When the management of NFL teams chooses not to employ a Colin Kaepernick, it somehow makes sense to direct protests at the nation and national symbols, on the field and in uniform. The most recent protest was against President Trump. Trump's exact woprds, You see, when Trump said "son of a bitch," the athletes were outraged. On Sunday, one of the athletes scored a touchdown and celebrated by exercising his right to freedom of expression. He got on all fours, hiked a leg, and on national television, on the field and in uniform, demonstrated how his mother taught him to pee. Despite his constitutional right to freedom of expression, and in violation of his constitutional rights, they fined him. This despite his explanation that he was a dog and he was just being a dog. His evident mistake was he forgot to tuck a small flag in his sock. Had he taken a flag from his sock, and put it on the ground, and made like he was peeing on the flag, then it would have been constitutionally protected free speech in the NFL because unity. On another score he gave a Black power salute because NFL unity week. The Giants have a sterling 0-3 record this season. They have two celebration penalties. Last week it was $12,154 for crotch grabbing. The Randy Moss moon was topped by the Doug Baldwin crap. The NFL has become a class act. Roger Goodell calls it protecting the shield. As we all know, if one speaks of somebody who disrespects our flag, that is racist. How dare President Trump suggest that if somebody disrespects our flag, that the owner should say "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now." President Trump was positively rude and the players should be given a safe zone.
Protesting aside, a darker side of pro-football is the long term injuries that are sometimes sustained. It's one of those things that are known to exist but is also ignored as an occupational hazard that fans and viewers have decided that is acceptable for players to be subjected to. The drop in ratings caused by players discovering their de facto power to express views, especially vulgar ones, may give life to a movement to quash football on health grounds. If blacks make up a disproportionately large portion of teams, perhaps even a majority, then maybe BLM will see fit to start protesting it. Well, maybe not BLM. In addition to fines, I do expect the NFL to take action by at least noting players that protest and not broadcast their celebrations. They will probably, if they haven't already, do a 10-second broadcast delay and block out any such activities. Obviously it won't prevent stadium attendees from seeing them and posting on youtube, but it will significantly minimize that damage to broadcast viewership, at least. I suppose they have already stopped broadcasting players during the anthem. Edit: Thinking a little more on it, the NFL may even decree that they will start firing players who engage on on-field protests and vulgarities. Obviously if the revenue lost from tolerating them is exceeded by that saved by keeping good players, it could be viewed as a long term equitable decision. Unfortunately, doing exactly what Trump suggested they do could make the NFL look like they are taking a pro-Trump position which may spark another controversy from the left. But they may find it an easier position to tolerate.
The drop in ratings caused by players discovering their de facto power to express views, especially vulgar ones, may give life to a movement to quash football on health grounds. There is no right of employees to freedom of expression in the workplace, neither de jure nor de facto. The employer has the right to set the standard. The employee who chooses to violate the employer's standard can be fired. An imaginary so-called right, repeated endlessly by the media, does not become a right. When the owners decide they have to end this, they will discover that there is no such right, and they will inform the misbehaving employees that there is no such right. Killing off football for health reasons is as likely as killing off boxing and MMA or soccer on health grounds. As long as consenting adults, men and women, want to get in a cage and beat the crap out of each other, and other consenting adults are willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to watch them do so, and they will not see a need to listen to a movement by people who can just not watch. And with soccer being a darling sport, child concussions are no big deal. Not gonna happen. The networks make that decision. The celebrations are generally not protests. What is the guy simulating taking a crap on the field protesting? Constipation? Had they gotten Kaepernick off the field when he kneeled, they would have had to deal with BLM/Antifa. Now they have to deal with those who oppose BLM/Antifa which is a somewhat greater number, and poses a real danger to their business. It is somewhat akin to an MMA fight where Trump has the NFL in an inescapable submission hold, perhaps a rear naked choke with pressure on the carotids. The NFL does not feel the urgent need to tap out yet, but they alreay know this is not going to end well. They need to tap out before they get put to sleep. Correct. I observed on early thread that the NFL is in a no win situation. Trump has them in a position of defending disrespect for the flag. Continuing that will only lose fans. After last nights kneeling before the anthem, Trump noted the progress and told them exactly what they have to do — do not kneel during the anthem. Easy. Problem solved, Trump wins. Goodell and the owners lose a disastrous PR battle. That is still better than losing a prolonged PR war. If they want to, the NFL could give them an hour show every night on the NFL channel to discuss race in America. They could kneel for an hour, if the spirit moves them. They could just espouse their cause, whatever it is, for an hour a day. Just consider what would happen with such an opportunity to explain and espouse the protest.
Agreed. The way I see it, just because this protesting cannot be dealt with on criminal grounds does not mean it cannot be dealt with on contractural grounds. We normally have a "right" to break contracts, though we are not free of legal consequences of breaking them, such as being fired for not standing for the anthem. I think we have slightly differing concepts of what defines a "right".
I think we have slightly differing concepts of what defines a "right". A right is something that can be relied upon in court. Breaching a contract will subject you to being held liable in court. You cannot be held liable in court for exercising a right. There is no criminal penalty for violation of the flag code. Stomping on it, or burning it, is not a crime. Stomping of thee flag, or burning it, as an employee in the workplace, can get one fired before his trip to the police station has begun. You do not have a right to break contracts. While not a criminal offense, you may find yourself in civil court, liable for whatever damages the court assesses. If a WalMart employee, inside a WalMart store on mr. Sam's time, decides to exercise his right to protest, he may find himself being escorted out by the police. The NFL employee has no more right to peacefully protest on the field than does the fan coming out of the stands. If the NFL should choose to prohibit the player behavior, they could have the violating player taken away by the police, just like the fan who runs onto the field. The NFL player is an employee, nothing more. - - - - - - - - - - If you enter a contract with the intent of breaching its terms, you may find yourself liable at tort, rather then contract law. See Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's Torts, Cases and Materials, 12th edition, Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 417-18. Historically, the contract action developed considerably later than tort liability. Along with it, it remained possible to maintain the old tort action on the case in any situation where it had already been recognized. The result was a distinction, generally recognized, between "nonfeasance," where the defendant had done no more than make a promise and break it, and "misfeasance," where he had attempted performance but done the wrong thing. The tort/contract boundary was the prime analytical division in the law of obligations. That division became demarcated by the description that the duty in contract arose out of the agreement of the parties, while in tort it arose by operation of law. The language of duty became entrenched in the law of negligence because the contract/tort distinction rested on the source of the obligation. See D. J. Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (1999) at 170-173. Nonfeasance. In general, when there is only the promise and the breach, only the contract action will lie, and no tort action can be maintained. A good illustration is Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Spinks, 104 Ga. 692, 30 S.E. 968 (1898), where the defendant invited plaintiff to come to Cincinnati for employment and promised that if it did not employ him, it would furnish him with transportation back to Atlanta. He came, fell ilL and was not employed. Defendant refused to give him a ticket to Atlanta, and he was forced to walk the whole way, suffering "much from pain, weariness and blistered feet." It was held that his only remedy was an action on the contract and no tort action would lie. See also Newton v. Brook, 134 Ala. 269, 32 So. 722 (1902), where defendants contracted to prepare a body for shipment by a certain train and then did nothing. Again it was held that there was no tort remedy. To this general rule there are a few recognized exceptions. One is that a public utility or common carrier that has undertaken the duty of serving the public becomes liable in tort when it fails to do so, whether or not it has made a contract. See, for example, Nevin v. Pullman Palace-Car Co., 100 Ill. 222, 46 Am.Rep. 688 (1883); Zabron v. Cunard S.s. Co., 151 Iowa 345, 131 N.W. 18 (1911). Another is that a defendant who makes a contract without the intention to perform it is regarded as committing a form of misrepresentation or fraud for which a tort action of deceit will lie. See Burgdorfer v. Thielemann, page 1110. Promises or undertakings may form the foundation of a special relationship sufficient to impose a duty of care in negligence to take affirmative action to protect a person from harm. See Section 2.
There are no replies to Comment # 23. End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#5)
They tried to handle a sensitive public situation wisely but muffed it up. How surprising is that? They're football players, not politicians!
#11. To: Tooconservative (#7)
Who knows what they're really protesting at this point? I'm not sure even they know.
“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!’”
#15. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#11)
(Edited)
#20. To: Pinguinite (#15)
Protesting aside, a darker side of pro-football is the long term injuries that are sometimes sustained. It's one of those things that are known to exist but is also ignored as an occupational hazard that fans and viewers have decided that is acceptable for players to be subjected to.
In addition to fines, I do expect the NFL to take action by at least noting players that protest and not broadcast their celebrations.
Edit: Thinking a little more on it, the NFL may even decree that they will start firing players who engage on on-field protests and vulgarities. Obviously if the revenue lost from tolerating them is exceeded by that saved by keeping good players, it could be viewed as a long term equitable decision.
Unfortunately, doing exactly what Trump suggested they do could make the NFL look like they are taking a pro-Trump position which may spark another controversy from the left. But they may find it an easier position to tolerate.
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
There is no right of employees to freedom of expression in the workplace, neither de jure nor de facto. The employer has the right to set the standard. The employee who chooses to violate the employer's standard can be fired. An imaginary so-called right, repeated endlessly by the media, does not become a right.
#23. To: Pinguinite (#21)
We normally have a "right" to break contracts, though we are not free of legal consequences of breaking them, such as being fired for not standing for the anthem.
1. PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
Replies to Comment # 23.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]