Two Buttons

First off, the Bill of Rights only applies between the Government and it's citizens. The GOVERNMENT cannot quell your speech, BUT private corporations like ABC CAN fire people for making remarks that go against their principles. Sure, Roseanne has the right to say whatever she wants, but ABC can also fire her for what she says. However, the government can't imprison her for it.

...that's the question...
22vwq3.jpg (click to show)

When I first read his comment, I thought the answer was implied. The NFL is thier employer (or at least a governing body that they are expected to comply with as a condition of employment), so yes. The NFL can fine them for political protests, especially when they take place on NFL property at time when players are reasonably interpreted to be performing duties directly related to thier jobs.

Thats why we have two hands.

2bnuov.jpg (click to show)
More like two faces

When they read your comment...2bigsn.gif (click to show)

2bqu5w.jpg (click to show) I will join the protest

Do you not see the hypocrisy?
As elderban pointed out, the first amendment is between the government and It's citizens, so there is some room for interpretation.
Either an employer can penalize use of speech, or the first amendment still protects it.
If employers can penalize speech, they can fire Roseanne for her tweets, but the NFL can also fine players for protesting.
If you believe the first amendment protects workers from retaliation from employers, then the players right to protest is protected, but so is Roseanne's tweet.
You could even argue that employers can limit speech, but only while someone is working and performing job related duties. Since the players are on the field and reasonably considered to be working and performing duties related to work, while Roseanne's tweet was not while working and performing duties related to work, you could argue that the players speech is not protected in that moment, but that Roseanne's tweet was.
At any rate, there is no logical interpretation that says the players protests is protected by the first amendment, but Roseanne's tweet wasn't. The first amendment doesn't differentiate between "acceptable" and "unacceptable speech". That is the whole point of the first amendment.

Many are trying to argue that the NFL cannot fine the players because the players speech is protected by the first amendment. My point is that if the first amendment protects the players from retaliation (fines) from thier employer, then it protects Roseanne from retaliation (being fired) by her employer.

I think firing Roseanne was the right move. But I also think fining players is appropriate. They are on the field and reasonably interpreted to performing job related duties. While they claim to be protesting police violence (and I do believe that is their intent), the thing that they are protesting is the national anthem, which is not a symbol of the police or violence, but of America, so the optics is that they are protesting America. If the NFL were to choose to let them to protest in that manner, that is the NFL's decision (they are, however catering to the Mel's ultra patriotic fan base. Sports are, first and foremost, entertainment). But the first amendment does not protect their speech any more than it protects Roseanne's.

Or we could agree that NFL players exercise the First Amendment and Roseanne is a racist f**k.

I said nothing about whether either type speech was appropriate or not. You want the players speech protected, because you agree with it. You don't want Roseanne's speech protected because you disagree with it. The first amnendment exists specifically to protect speech that is disagreed with.
This debate is specifically whether the first ammendment protects employees speech from retaliation by employers.
Roseanne may very well be a racist f**k. That is irrelevant to whether or not her speech is protected. Once we decide some speech is legally protected and some isn't, the concept of free speech is irelevant.
Either the first amendment protects speech from retaliation by employers, or it doesn't. The content of the speech is irrelevant.

22edi6.gif (click to show)
22vkx7.gif (click to show)

They truly don't understand that free speech covers all speech