The members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., became (in)famous over time for their vile protests at military funerals.
Their right to protest in that fashion was upheld by the Supreme Court. So, too, has been the right to burn the American flag (which Westboro Baptist also does) and of Nazis to march through the mostly Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie.
In those cases, the court decided correctly, because it is political speech and expression, particularly offensive political speech and expression, that the founders took greatest pains to protect. When "offensive" speech is suppressed, all speech is imperiled.
Such thoughts come to mind when considering the uproar over the Lady Razorbacks and the national anthem, about which several observations.
First, no one, or at least no one with even a hazy understanding of the Constitution, would deny a right to refuse to stand at attention during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner. Among the most important rights which the flag and anthem symbolize is the right to express disrespect for the flag and anthem (and anything else).
As many have noted, to legally punish those who express disrespect for the flag is to turn upside down the principles for which it stands.
But beyond these (hopefully) indisputable points, and with the usual straw man arguments dispensed with, a fair amount of confusion still reigns.
Contrary to some popular misconceptions, the First Amendment applies to government action and government action only; more precisely, it prohibits the government from suppressing most speech and expression (the word "most" applies because commercial and other forms of speech receive less constitutional protection than political speech).
What the First Amendment therefore doesn't do is prevent private sanction of offensive speech. Employers can, for instance, fire employees who post offensive things on Facebook or who express themselves in ways that damage their company's reputation and profitability. If they had wished, the San Francisco 49ers, as a private organization, could have suspended or even cut quarterback Colin Kaepernick, the instigator of the kneel-for-the-anthem shtick.
Put differently, the First Amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of engaging in unpopular or obnoxious speech--just as members of the Lady Razorbacks are free to take a knee because of the First Amendment, the First Amendment also grants the rest of us the freedom to criticize them for that show of disrespect.
Perhaps more important is the idea that with rights come responsibilities, such that some rights under certain circumstances might be best left unexercised. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean that it is right to do.
That people have a right to burn the flag and Lady Razorbacks a right to kneel during the playing of the national anthem doesn't make such behavior any less reprehensible.
There are, after all, all kinds of ways that people concerned about racial injustice can express those concerns that don't embarrass your teammates, the basketball program you are a part of, and the university whose uniform you are privileged to wear.
Assuming (probably erroneously in this case) that you truly want to make a difference rather than simply grandstand and call attention to yourself, those other methods are also more likely to contribute to civil debate and less likely to offend people and thereby undermine your cause--when your behavior becomes the issue rather than the issue itself, you have made things worse, not better.
Finally, a thought experiment: What if next time around, instead of kneeling during the playing of the national anthem, a group of Lady Razorbacks decided to hold aloft and wave about small confederate flags as a political statement?
Although such action would presumably also constitute a form of protest protected by the First Amendment, would their coach be as eager to say he was "very, very proud of them"? Would their athletic director be as quick to issue a statement of support, and would the university's chancellor praise them for their efforts to "raise awareness?"
Yes, freedom is meaningless if it doesn't protect the right to say and do stupid things. But that doesn't mean that the supposed grown-ups in the room should confirm their moral obtuseness by applauding.
College administrators seem to have become particularly eager in recent years to impose speech codes and "trigger warnings" to prevent the giving of offense, but apparently kneeling before the national anthem doesn't count as sufficiently offensive.
For my part, I have a long-standing rule to never watch a movie with "Hanoi" Jane Fonda in it, as a lingering and probably ineffectual sanction for her being photographed swiveling around in that North Vietnamese gun turret way back when. Some things simply can't be allowed to pass and can probably never be forgiven.
I will also hereafter, for what it's worth, exercise my rights by refusing to attend or watch on television Arkansas Lady Razorback basketball games for as long as those who kneeled during the anthem remain Arkansas Lady Razorbacks.
Time and money are scarce commodities, so why spend them on people who go out of their way to insult us and that which we honor?
------------v------------
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
Editorial on 11/14/2016