Harumi

That is a very broad statement, and can probably be applied to all countries. Does she have any specific examples?

Here's another way to protest though: don't vote for Bush.

Feather

This is exactly what smokers say to non-smokers, you know. Non-smokers don't have to go out. They don't have to walk around near smokers. If non-smokers don't like cigarrette smoke they can just avoid it. Only it is the smoker--not the non-smoker--that causes the "confrontation" in the first place. It's a question of whose rights are more important--the rights of the smoker to smoke a legal substance or the rights of the non-smoker to not have to go out of his way to access the same facilities and places the smoker has an easier time accessing by virtue of the smokers' habits?

The same thing applies here: why does her right to protest (which is a given) supercede the rights of the audience that paid to see a basketball game? Whose imposing on whom here, eh?

I think she's brave. I also think she's naive and obviously prone to act largely on emotion. Her statement is very broad and could mean anything without further clarification.

Regardless, she chose the forum in which to register her protest, knowing full well that the audience would be captive to witness it. Saying they can just "not look" seems somehow more like a tacit endorsement of one view simply because it's more appealing.

Somehow that makes it alright, in my book, for certain persons to act to get her removed. Their opinions have (or should have) an equal chance to be heard and considered.

Even if I, or you, or anybody else disagrees with them.

simian

She did not request that the national anthem be played so she could do her protest. What she is doing does not interfere with the basketball game.

If the complaint is that the audience paid to see the ball game, the anthem should be done away with all togther - it delays the game.

Where it a "voluntary" prayer, would you say she should participate so as to not cause a scene?

Simian

Shadowy Man

This is a bad example. It can be exceedingly difficult to avoid cigarette smoke.

This doesn't apply at all. The audience got to see their basketball game. Avoiding seeing her protest didn't require them to change seats, or not attend the game (like avoiding a smoker's smoke would require). Her rights didn't interfere with their rights at all!


I bet if they didn't play the national anthem at the basketball game, she wouldn't have stood with her back to the flag. So, is it not within her rights to not partake of this "forced" patriotic act.

What if someone in the audience didn't stand up during the national anthem. Should that person be kicked out of the arena? Would that person have somehow infringed on the rights of the others in the audience??

Feather

Just a couple of things.

One: I think playing the Anthem at sporting events is fuax-patriotic garbage. It's like Ebert's "Horizontal Prayer" in my opinion. But that doesn't mean the stadium can't play it.

Two: I never questioned her right to protest. I never suggested it by a longshot. So, Shadowy Man, your post is largely one big strawman.

Three: All I'm objecting to, here, is the apparent outrage that people might vocally disagree with Smith's action, and that this outrage extends so far as to suggest these people are wrong for trying to get "something done" about Smith. It smacks of hypocrisy. She can protest/make a statement and she's brave because it goes against the grain. But others' attempts to get her out of there are somehow cowardly and hypocritical? What happened to their right to express opinion?

PS: The smoker/non-smoker analogy is perfectly applicable in this case. It is very easy to avoid smokers--just avoid the places they frequent. Just like it's very easy for those disgusted with Smith to avoid attending basketball games. The question isn't whether Smith has a right to protest, or whether smokers have the right to smoke. The question is whether "anti-Smiths" have the right to speak against Smith and enjoy a game, just like the question is whether non-smokers have the right to impose restrictions on smokers' activities.

It's not a perfect analogy, but there are none.

Mageth

Three: All I'm objecting to, here, is the apparent outrage that people might vocally disagree with Smith's action, and that this outrage extends so far as to suggest these people are wrong for trying to get "something done" about Smith. It smacks of hypocrisy. She can protest/make a statement and she's brave because it goes against the grain. But others' attempts to get her out of there are somehow cowardly and hypocritical? What happened to their right to express opinion?

I definitely think they have the right to express their opinion. I just think that the anti-Ms. Smith protests I've heard generally express a lack of understanding of her constitutional rights to free speech and to protest the government in the (peaceful) manner she chooses. And thus, I think they are wrong for trying to get "something done" about Ms. Smith; she's exercising her constitutional rights. Just like I think our legislators are wrong when they try to pass bills to supress flag-burning or to legislate keeping "under God" in the pledge.

Shadowy Man

You mean like the sidewalk on my way to work?

I very often do cross the street or take a different way to work in the morning because I happen to be walking downwind of a smoker. If I can get away I do.

themistocles

Personally, I think as long as she's wearing the uniform which represents her team, her teamates, the coaching staff, the college, it's students, and alumni, that ultimately the team and the university's opinion matters most so far as "what should be done about it" is concerned.

If she wants to make such a statement, fine, but as a representative of her school and mates, she should be subject to their rules. In that regard, particularly if they disagree or embarrassed by her position, then she stands at a very selfish position.

Shadowy Man

Actually from what I read, her teammates didn't have a problem with her stance.

themistocles

I believe I've seen footage of other team mates joining her stance.

But I do think, ethically speaking, if the team and school disagreed with her, their rights are of greater priority than her protests (which can be done on her own, or with a group that accepts the position).