Allowing the NFL players to protest while in uniform, however, is not universally applicable. For example, police officers and military personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms when protesting because their right to freedom of speech “does not include the right to borrow the inherent prestige represented by the uniforms to lend weight and significance to privately held convictions on public issues” (Marine Corps Uniform Regulations). Due to the fact that it is reasonable to expect police officers and military personnel to not abuse their uniform and prestige to further their personal interests, it would be considered unethical to allow the NFL players to protest while in uniform to similarly heighten the significance of their privately held …show more content…
Distributive justice focuses on principles regarding the “distribution of benefits and burdens of economic activity among individuals in a society” (Distributive Justice, 1). Rawls theory promotes the equitable allocation of social benefits, and according to Rawls, “each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties” (Distributive Justice, 5). While one could argue that the right to protest is a basic liberty that must always be protected, the players have contractually agreed to conduct themselves in a way that will not generate public disrespect towards the NFL. Therefore, by kneeling during the anthem, the players are violating their terms of employment with the NFL. While players have the right to protest outside of work in their personal lives, they do not necessarily have the right to do so while they are working, are in uniform, and representing the firm. Additionally, the players do not maintain hold the right to protest while using NFL resources (e.g., the NFL’s private property, protesting via the NFL’s TV programs). Therefore, the NFL CEO is not violating the player’s rights to protest, for the players can and should be exercising this right outside of work while using their own