ShareThis Page
Scott Rasmussen: Protesting during the anthem, freedom of speech & justice |
Featured Commentary

Scott Rasmussen: Protesting during the anthem, freedom of speech & justice

Sixty-nine percent of voters nationwide believe freedom of speech is “absolutely essential.” Another 23 percent believe it is “very important.” In a deeply polarized political era, it’s encouraging — and amazing — to find that 9 in 10 Americans recognize this basic freedom as being so important.

However, agreeing that free speech is important doesn’t mean agreeing with the way others use that freedom. A prime example of this in today’s world has been the intense debate about NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem.

It’s become a hot-button issue because playing the national anthem is a deeply embedded part of the culture surrounding sports in America. Seventy-nine percent of NFL fans say that playing the national anthem is an important part of an NFL game. Just over half “strongly agree” with that notion.

So when Colin Kaepernick first disrupted that cultural norm, people noticed. When other players joined him, the protests seemed to sometimes generate more coverage and interest than the game itself. The league has very publicly struggled to find a solution that the players can accept and also addresses the reality that 6 in 10 fans disapprove of the protesting.

If you listen to the loudest voices and the political echoes surrounding this debacle, it would seem as if there were nothing on which the opposing voices could agree. But at, we believe that there is far more common ground in American society than in American politics. We try to find that common ground by asking questions from a different perspective and thus providing a richer understanding of the topic at hand.

In the case of football and the national anthem, we decided to focus on a different aspect of the game experience. Do fans approve of the stadiums’ continuing to sell concessions, such as beer and popcorn, while “The Star-Spangled Banner” is being played? Nearly half of NFL fans and most voters nationwide disapprove. In other words, not only do they think it would be nice if the players would simply stand to respect the national anthem but also they think it would be nice if the stadiums stopped selling for a moment to show the same respect.

And, it should be noted, most Americans seem to understand what both sides are trying to say. The players say they are taking a stand for justice, and 67 percent of voters agree that the United States today does not provide liberty and justice for all. There may be disagreement on the details and how far short we fall, but there is a widespread recognition that all of us have work to do before our country fully lives up to its highest ideals.

At the same time, 84 percent believe the United States is a land of opportunity. That very fact is what gives the affluent football players the opportunity to be heard. All of us are fortunate to live in a nation founded upon the noble ideals of freedom, equality and self-governance.

Though freedom of speech is sometimes uncomfortable, it remains essential. America’s football fans seem to appreciate that fact, in perhaps the most interesting finding from our survey. We offered them two options: Would they rather the league stop playing the national anthem to avoid all the distractions, or would they prefer that the league play the anthem and allow the protests to continue. Sixty-three percent of NFL fans chose the latter.

Scott Rasmussen is the publisher of and author of “The Sun Is Still Rising: Politics Has Failed but America Will Not.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.