Should athletes kneel during the national anthem?

The ability to protest is a first amendment right these athletes are entitled to

Question: Should athletes kneel during the national anthem?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, athletes should kneel as a legitimate form of protest
Argument1 of 3›: The ability to protest is a first amendment right these athletes are entitled to

It is guaranteed by the first amendment that all Americans have the right to protest whatever issue they want. Athletes are just normal people who have these rights as well, and kneeling is just a legitimate exercise of their constitutional rights.

The argument

The First Amendment guarantees the right of any individual to freedom of speech and to peaceably petition the government for a redress of grievances. Kneeling during the anthem is both of those things at once: an expressive act, and an address to the public and the state about a grievance the protester believes is going unanswered. Regardless of whether Kaepernick's viewpoint is right, or whether his actions are actually helping the movement, the right to kneel in the middle of the pre-game anthem is a right he must be entitled to. Those two questions have to be kept apart, because a right that only protected effective or correct protest would protect nothing. The entire purpose of a speech guarantee is to cover expression that other people find mistaken, badly judged, or offensive; expression that everyone approves of needs no protection. Objections that Kaepernick chose the wrong moment, or that his gesture achieved little, are arguments about the merits of the protest and have no bearing on whether he was entitled to make it. Just like anyone else in society, athletes are humans and citizens. Their right to talk about anything they want, at any time they want, should therefore be guaranteed, and their profession does not create an exception. This right exists because America, since its founding, has believed that individuals always best understand the circumstances of their own lives, and that any complaint an individual has should be taken as legitimate. That premise applies with particular force here, since the grievance concerns treatment the protester and people close to him have experienced directly, and which those objecting to the protest have not. If Kaepernick wants to kneel, and believes that racism is a problem that threatens him and those he cares about, and certain audience members have seen his actions and agree with him, it is fully within all of their rights to do so.

Premises

[P1]The First Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to free speech and to peaceably petition the government for redress of grievances. [P2] Athletes are citizens and therefore retain these constitutional rights while performing their jobs, regardless of whether others agree with their message. [P3] Kneeling during the anthem is a peaceful expression of grievance about racism, which falls squarely within protected speech. [C] Therefore, athletes should be free to kneel during the national anthem as a legitimate exercise of their First Amendment rights.

Counter-arguments

Having the right to do something doesn’t make that action the correct thing to do. No one challenges the fact that Kaepernick had a right to kneel. This debate is meant to be about whether or not his kneeling was justified or effective. This argument doesn’t show that athletes should be kneeling. Additionally, just as Kaepernick has a right to free speech and protest, the NFL and the football team that he plays on also have an equal right to choose not to sign on players that they deem unhelpful for their team. According to American law, the right to hire at will is an internal company matter that has been guaranteed to companies. Therefore, even though it was legitimate for Kaepernick to speak out, it was also legitimate for the San Fransisco 49ers to choose not to sign him on for another season.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Having a right to do something doesn't make that action correct.