11/21/24
December 11, 2004
Fans find zero tolerance: The Palace wants no more malice, so security is tightening up at Detroit basketball games. Fans get the word -- Play nice, or you're out of here.
posted by roberts to basketball at 11:24 AM - 6 comments
i don't think it's a first amendment issue. you don't need a ticket to get into a shopping mall. next time you go to a sporting event look at the back of the ticket. you are buying a revocable license to attend the event. the team has the right to kick you out if your behavior is deemed disorderly, if you use abusive language, etc. i've heard of people getting kicked out of yankee games for singing a dirty song. no heckling involved, just a bunch of naughty words. it's just one of the terms and conditions that you agree to as a ticketholder. just like you lose the right to sue if you get hit in the head with a foul ball.
posted by goddam at 04:22 PM on December 11, 2004
You might be right, goddam, IANAL, but I think speech and waiving liability aren't precisely the same issues.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:21 PM on December 11, 2004
Just glancing at the back of an Argos ticket stub I have lying around: Management reserves the right to ... expel from the premises any person whose presence or conduct is deemed by it to be objectionable. I'd imagine that that's pretty standard (please, read your stubs and let me know if I'm wrong). The definition of "objectionable conduct" is totally subjective, and you agree to that by buying and using the ticket. IANAUSCL, but I can't imagine such an action being seen as a free speech issue. Now, when Palace security follows you downtown and stops you from handing out handbills questioning Larry Brown's lineage, then you've got a problem.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 02:17 AM on December 12, 2004
Free speech and abusive behaviour are not bedfellows. The Palace is responding to an incident in an appropriate fashion I think.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:59 AM on December 12, 2004
I guess we all agree here that for years a lot of fans have been abusing the players’ verbally, same players who did not pay any attention to the fans yelling all kinds of defamation and condemnation and whatever you can think of. I for one thought that the player’s concentration level was so high that they could not hear the fans attacks, or if they did hear them they used them to build more energy, to play better and turn the negative into positive like Michael Jordan used to do, but I’ve being proven wrong throughout the years. Here is an example: “Latrell you allow more unopposed penetrations than Paris Hilton.” That’s what the lady said to Latrell Sprewell, Latrell then answered “suck my d***”, and then all hell broke loose. I personally think she had a good point on criticizing Latrell’s defense in that particular game. I want to ask you guys, do you think this kind of comment should be considered as heckling or should it be considered as performance criticism?
posted by LROD at 11:01 PM on December 12, 2004
I don't know, seems to me that the arena and cops might run into 1st amendment issues for tossing customers who taunt players, coaches or refs. Sure, it's private property but certain precedents involving shopping centers and charity solicitations as well as pornography make me think they might be skating on thin ice if anybody makes a fuss. Which is different, just to be clear, from banning fans for tossing beer or chairs.