PDA

View Full Version : 1st amendment and Bills games


nehemiah
December 29th, 2005, 9:05:36 PM
even though the Bills get trashed in the comments section... from carpetbagger report (best blog, IMO):

For years, disgruntled football fans have taken some pleasure in mocking their team when it's losing. Fans have worn paper bags over their heads, held up signs calling for a new coach, and generally shouted rude things at anyone on the field who'd listen.

But in Buffalo, where the Bills are nearly finished with their disappointing 5-and-10 season, there's a new free-speech debate underway. The methods of protest that fans have been enjoying for years are suddenly off-limits.
...
Apparently, this wasn't an isolated incident. The Bills organization has a policy that encourages security to confiscate negative signs, T-shirts, and, yes, even paper bags. In a more amusing example, before a game against Atlanta, the Bills barred fans wearing "Ron Mexico" jerseys from even entering the stadium after Michael Vick allegedly used the name as an alias after being sued by a woman who accused him of infecting her with herpes.

In other words, in Buffalo's Ralph Wilson Stadium, which is a public facility that has enjoyed public financing, fans are finding that they're checking some of their First Amendment rights at the gate. Signs are acceptable, unless the team finds them "negative." T-shirts and jerseys are fine, as long as they're supporting the Bills and/or the league's public-relations strategy. It's reminiscent of the Bush White House's Bubble-Boy policies in which people are welcome at presidential events, as long as they agree to be on-message.

Could this be an untapped market for free-speech litigation?
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6204.html

sports illustrated story at: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/12/28/bc.fbn.bills.unhappyfan.ap/

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 9:19:01 PM
First amendment crap again... God this is like water torture.

nehemiah
December 29th, 2005, 9:21:24 PM
First amendment crap again... God this is like water torture.are you queen of the threads now? have you replaced the last person to be queen? ;) at the queen. *mumble, mumble*

stop bitching and BUTCH UP, GIRLYPANTS!Are you actually making a point or just thread dive bombing Golden Boy?

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 9:23:14 PM
So your stance is negative signs should not be confiscated?

nehemiah
December 29th, 2005, 9:32:04 PM
So your stance is negative signs should not be confiscated?yes. negative signs should not be confiscated.

gratuitous stuff could be confiscated. stuff with swear words and dirty pics. but not "fire donahoe". that's just stupid.

you got a problem with that, girlypants?

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 9:35:12 PM
If you are shielding your myopic view with the first amendment... then yes.

nehemiah
December 29th, 2005, 9:41:51 PM
If you are shielding your myopic view with the first amendment... then yes.:scratch:

i looked up all the words in my "sukie-tionary" and yet this sentence is still confusing.

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 9:48:03 PM
the " ...then yes" is the answer to your question.
The myopic view part is the slap.

it's in the first section of the "sukie-tionary" right after there are NO entitlements for humans, let alone Americans, and before the poor don't count.

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 9:50:32 PM
BTW, I can smack Read n React since he chimes in one post a month. Then when you engage him you wish he only chimed in once a month.

nehemiah
December 29th, 2005, 9:53:28 PM
so what's your beef? no criticism allowed? you're a stalinist Bills fan, too?

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 9:56:37 PM
I wanted to know how the first amendment isn't so black and white in this instance but the fourth is always. Stop being so coy and timid... I almost thought njsue pirated your name.

nehemiah
December 29th, 2005, 10:01:36 PM
I wanted to know how the first amendment isn't so black and white in this instance but the fourth is always. Stop being so coy and timid... I almost thought njsue pirated your name.:rofl: who is njsue? is that an insult, or no?

i agree with the supreme court's ruling about both the 1st and 4th amendments.

sukie
December 29th, 2005, 10:09:15 PM
But you pick and choose in this case... Any business reserves the right to refuse service ( like in bars and restaurants) The Ralph has rights to confiscate whatever they want as long as they are consistant.

ckg68
December 30th, 2005, 12:51:53 AM
As far as Ron Mexico jerseys....you ARE aware that you can't get 'em through NFLShop.com,right?

sukie
December 30th, 2005, 8:30:40 AM
Yeah... so? They can sell or not sell whatever they want.

nehemiah
December 30th, 2005, 8:46:41 AM
Yeah... so? They can sell or not sell whatever they want.and you ARE aware that rich stadium is a private venue... like a mall?

sukie
December 30th, 2005, 12:14:16 PM
Okay, are you for or against the taking down of Donahoe sucks signs?

anEinherjer
December 31st, 2005, 12:51:25 PM
are you queen of the threads now? have you replaced the last person to be queen? ;) at the queen. *mumble, mumble*

stop bitching and BUTCH UP, GIRLYPANTS!

OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!

The Stadium most certainly should NOT be considered a private venue, since they raped the taxpayers to get the thing built and to keep it up and running.

You get gov't money, you get gov't rules. In other words, ADA, anti-smoking, and 1st ****ing Amendment. Wasn't it the Patriots who build Gillette with no public financing? There, I could see the argument that they could put in a frigging dress code if they wanted.

I can't believe JW's arguing for suppression of free speech. Is this Bizarro world?

sukie
December 31st, 2005, 12:52:33 PM
It's as private a place as any... How it was built means nothing.

anEinherjer
December 31st, 2005, 12:53:54 PM
Not true, suk. Private property is one thing. Gov't subsidized semi-public property (taken via eminent domain, no doubt) is completely different. :)

sukie
December 31st, 2005, 12:57:04 PM
Nope...It's a private facility regardless of taxation to build it. It was a gift to a private enterprise. Lambeau might be different.