Two Ships

The Kaepernick kerfuffle is a great example of the mistake people in the media and elsewhere make over and over again in talking about 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights: Conflating freedom of speech with freedom from criticism of one's speech. The first amendment right to free speech insulates us from government interference with our right to say what we want – government being the key word here. Government, under the constitution, cannot use its power to either prohibit or punish speech. In other words, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking or saying.

It absolutely does not insulate us from the consequences of what we say, or render us immune from criticism for it. It doesn’t insulate us from being told by our fellow citizens that we’re full of you-know-what when we flap our gums about this or that. If it did, then calling Donald Trump a jackass for the things he says (as just one example) would be a violation of his constitutional right to free speech. Freedom of speech says you can stand on a street corner and rail for the deportation of all left-handed people, but it does not protect you from being booed off your soapbox or pelted with rotten tomatoes for doing it. You can advocate for a whites-only policy at your workplace and not be put in jail for it. But you will be fired for it, and that’s not a violation of your free speech rights under the constitution.

Yet we see this scenario played out repeatedly in the Kaepernick Caper: One guy says he thinks Kaepernick is dead wrong; the other guy comes to his defense by citing his free speech rights. Two ships passing the night. No one -- except perhaps the wingnuts who see lack of sufficient devotion to mom and apple pie as treasonous -- questions Kaepernick’s right to do and say what he did. But that doesn’t mean he can’t or shouldn’t be criticized for it. It doesn’t mean that the content of his free speech can’t be disagreed with. And it certainly doesn't mean that criticizing him or disagreeing with his content or tactics equates to questioning or attempting to abrogate his rights.

As for the substance of his complaint: Although I assume his intent is to do his bit to keep the spotlight on the problems/conditions he is concerned about, I think his criticisms would be better directed at the individuals who perpetrate the conditions he deplores, as opposed to “the country” which, by way of its constitution and its ideals, is on his side in this issue. It’s not a country that does the things he rightly deplores. It’s people.  Kaepernick might avoid being accused of grandstanding and of calling attention to his moral superiority if his criticisms were more carefully targeted.  The notion that all of this is more about calling attention to himself than it is about expressing anguish over a serious social ill was reinforced when he showed up in public wearing clothing that seemed to pay homage to Fidel Castro, whose regime routinely murders political opponents and would not hesitate to throw Kaepernick in jail if it did not like the content of any public stance he might care to take.

Which brings us to the larger, and somewhat touchier, question of why it’s felt necessary to even have these displays of patriotism before sporting events – why sports at this level are so tied up with patriotic sentimentality. There’s nothing wrong with it, I suppose, but there’s nothing particularly right with it, either. There’s no natural connection between patriotic theater and large sporting events. We don’t do these things – wave the flag, play the national anthem, put color guards on parade – before movies or church or kids soccer games or algebra class. Why big-time sports? It’s a mystery. For more on this subject, here’s a link to an article by Sam Borden in the New York Times…