You can buy an official Kaepernick jersey from the official NFL store. Also, a bobblehead, if you want to buy something but don't have a torso.
"We will hang the capitalists with the jersey that they sell us."
Semi-OT
So I guess the NFL protests are now confined to linking arms in a 'all lives' gesture that's approved by the league?
4: Yeah, somewhat. Someone on Twitter said it's been "MLK'd".
How do we know that's happening? That is, players could still end up kneeling next week, right?
Last night was Packers/Bears if that matters. On Sunday, there will be many games, not just the one.
People play football on Thursday? Who knew?
If this article is right, the NFL may not be succeeding in trying to find the common ground between BLM and pretending racism doesn't exist.
9: Some college games are on Thursday now too. Also, Thursdays that are also Thanksgiving have had professional football for years.
In related news, a judge threw out the lawsuit against DeRay Mckesson. I'm not sure if this was ever anything more than spite and harassment. The guy sued a hashtag in addition to Mckeeson.
So under Louisiana law police officers can launch private lawsuits and keep their identity sealed?
OT: update out on the SpaceX Mars project - now including 30-minute airline service to anywhere. Long video here:
http://www.spacex.com/mars
It's a big country. There's bound to be at least one "Officer John Doe."
American freedom update: All protests must be approved by the League Office, whose officials serve at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief. The national anthem is kept ready to play immediately if anyone starts to voice an objection.
13: The court denied his request to proceed anonymously yesterday (although this was fed court/fed pleading rules, so no idea what Louisiana law allows). Court also dismissed the case yesterday, so as a practical matter I guess that means he stays anonymous unless he appeals?
If there is no name attached to it and the suit seems kind of pointless (e.g. naming a hashtag as a defendant), it makes me think that some conservative foundation is trying to attack Mckeeson and using the injured officer as a beard.
Or it could just be the usual plaintiff-lawyer search for anybody with money to name as a defendant.
If corporations can legally be considered people, why not hashtags?
Probably not, but out of everybody who used a popular hashtag, somebody has money.
I'd like to thank Boston fans for making me not revise any of my stereotypes about them.
22: It's an interesting concept. Not literally suing the hashtag, obvs, but making culpability for using it possible. Not yelling fire in a theater, exactly, but yelling "potential lynching target over here" in a town full of lynch mobs. (I assume none of this is relevant in this particular case.)
That's not really anything new in terms of the hashtag, though, it's just liability for injury caused by speech. You still need to sue the speaker.
19, 20: Doesn't look to me like it was lawyered by someone with foundation money behind them. I was guessing it was a lawyer who does a lot of work for cops and was willing to do a spite lawsuit on the cheap/gratis as a loss leader--the complaint is just silly, and I can't imagine any lawyer would expect a contingency payday from a defendant that doesn't even exist as a legal entity, much less own assets. But from her website she looks like a standard-issue personal injury lawyer, and it turns out they tried to amend the complaint to add Black Lives Matter Network, Inc., as a defendant, which they found "after making a donation through a website that is allegedly identified with the 'Black Lives Matter' movement" and getting the name off the donation receipt--so clearly they were figuring they'd put assets in play at some point.
It won't be long before we have sentient emoji, opening up entirely new fields of law.
The dude who shared the story on social media, Snapp, entirely missed the relevance of the Kaepernick jersey. Didn't mention it at all.
I'm sure that a certain type of person doesn't forget how the SPL (I think it was them) sued the Klan out of its buildings.
I mean, a type of person other than me.
26: Sure. I'm thinking it's a new category of speech though. The hashtag isn't exactly information in itself, but rather a change to what, and how, other information will be perceived by others. Also you have a class of hashtag "speakers" rather than individuals or discrete organizations. Also, determining culpability would involve assessing people's ability to predict events governed by proprietary algorithms.
28: Things will really get interesting when the sentient emoji start suing the hashtags.
25: So more like Schenck, the actual case we get "fire in a crowded theater" from, in being about criminalizing dissent by imagined nexus to violence.
They probably figure why switch horses midstream.
I remember reading that sales of Kaepernick stuff spiked last year. Google informs me that in August, he was still top 50.
And here's one place to go if you want your own Kaepernick gear.
This looks like somebody skinned Bob Saget and did a Leatherface.
35: I don't understand. How would dissent be criminalized? In any given case siccing a mob may or may not support the official view of the polity (if there is one). The nexus to violence (nexus here being a causal chain?) would have to be imagined or not imagined by people when deciding to use hashtags, but the nexuses would empirically exist, evident in previous events.
I think the point is that the officer was arguing that #BlackLivesMatter was a lynch mob and he was the victim.
Like I said, I assumed this case wasn't relevant. Although it's totally possible to be both a victim and a perpetrator.
Tweeting a hashtag in a crowded stadium is the new shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Anyway, I'm not good at fine-pointed legal analysis. But I'm pretty sure that whatever words the lawyer for the officer used, the intent was the old standard where three black people talking together was assumed to be a prelude to Nat Turner-ing everybody and sixty armed white men in hoods and robes was probably just a civic parade so no need to look into that.
Public Service Announcement:
Check your flute for semen.
On Topic: I'm going to have to stop making for of Eagles fans for throwing batteries at Santa Clause because standards are shifting.
It also misspelled Santa's last name.
46 Things I don't really want to know but should have been reported all the same: what have them the suspicion to check in the first place? Did they reek?
Have enough people watched the new Star Trek since it was last brought up here (3rd episode now up) that we could have a thread?
I would like a thread on how to watch it without signing up for a fifth streaming service (currently have PBS, HBOGO, Netflix, Amazon video)
I haven't watched it yet, but I also haven't had enough time to mentally adjust to there being four Star Trek series that I have not watched instead of three.
Haven't watched it, but curious what people say.
I think outside the US it's just being released on the same schedule on Netflix. Other than that, no legal way I know of.
Also haven't seen Discovery, and also not interested in adding another pay TV service.
But I'm wondering: Our media critic overlords have instructed us to despise The Orville, but I am enjoying it. Is there anybody else out there who hates that series insufficiently?
I haven't started it yet but I plan on watching it this weekend.
I've been watching Discovery. Not sure how I feel about it. I'm no Trekkie/er, but I have watched and enjoyed most of TOS and TNG, and a little of DS9. Tonally, this seems to have more in common with new shows like The Expanse than those, other than the technobabble. In general, I don't think that's a bad thing, but I'm not convinced by the writing so far.
Would it help if they had more blindly obvious social commentary via visiting planets that just so happened to involve issues directly analogous to those happening in 1960s America?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>psychic blast>psychic blast
53: You just need to take some time off from work, and marathon DS9. Unless you've already seen DS9, then you're good.
I've only seen two episodes. The second episode really was very Expanse-like. I like the Expanse, but it was too melodramatic for Star Trek. Part of the appeal of Star Trek, for me, is that the characters all radiate quiet professionalism.
Michelle Yeoh makes a surprisingly good captain. She looked awkward in the clips they showed in the previews, but I really liked her at episode length. I wonder if a prequel to the prequel series would be better. Sonequa Martin-Green and Michelle Yeoh have terrific chemistry, and the backstory of how a human raised among Vulcans learns to live with humans again almost seems like a more-interesting story than the one we're currently getting.
For tax purposes, my brother's dog owns the TV we have in the living room.
Part of the appeal of Star Trek, for me, is that the characters all radiate quiet professionalism.
Whereas so far the characters in Discovery all seem to radiate quiet malevolence.
the backstory of how a human raised among Vulcans learns to live with humans again almost seems like a more-interesting story than the one we're currently getting.
I get the impression that that's going to be the B-arc for the season.
I thought the B Ark was the one with the hair dressers and telephone sanitizers.
56. Is "The Orville" the one that's supposed to be a Star Trek comedy show? So many SF shows, so little interest.
67 It's Seth MacFarlane so I hate it automatically without even watching it.
I watched the first 20 minutes of Orville. It seemed clunky and dumb.
(Though I'm glad it'll keep Adrianne Palicki from making a comeback on SHIELD because she's terrible.)