The League

THE QUESTION

Free Speech, Fandom And FedEx

Should spectators have to check their First Amendment rights at the stadium gates?

Posted by Emil Steiner on October 30, 2009 8:33 AM
FEATURED COMMENTS

Haasenpfeffer: My prior comment got garbled; I left out an important "not." The reality is a private business cannot always required patrons to relinquish...

A1232: Join the plan to turn FedEx Field itself into a sign Snyder can't ban: http://fire-snyder-sign.blogspot.com/...

kenhyde: It's interesting the ban occurs at at at time when the owner is likely to see disparaging signs about the organization or himself. Who car...

Make a Comment  |  All Comments (8)

ALL COMMENTS (8)
cashbo22 Author Profile Page :

You pinkos are as disturbed as your beloved leader President Osama! It's called free enterprise, ever heard of it? This is America, you can't tell a private business what it can or cannot do. You don't like what Snyder's selling then you're free to shop some place else. You got a problem with that liberty then you're free to move somewhere else. Let me suggest Iran then see how that works out for you.

wkate2 Author Profile Page :

I would hope that football games are still civil places. Families attending have the right to not have to worry about their children being exposed to "R" rated vulgarities.

I also understand that fans want to express their frustrations with the team. It has been a tough couple of years but there are better forums for that kind of thing. I don't think this rule is about censoring public outrage, but about protecting our youngsters. Family-friendly is the goal here. If you don't believe me, then you can try riding home for two hours with twin 5-year-old boys chanting "F-word Dan Snyder!"

LarryBud Author Profile Page :

I love it when conservatives like CASHBO22 distort the constitution so tragically. Free speech is a specifically enumerated right of the people. Free enterprise is, at best, implied.

That said, the problem that the majority of us fans have is not that Snyder has rules for "his" house- the problem is that the rules changed mid-game when they started becoming negative towards him personally. There were no rule changes when fans were calling for Zorn's head with signs and boos. It wasn't till His Royal Corporate Highnass started seeing his likeness disparaged that rules started changing on the fly.

Then came bans- including bans of signs honoring the late #21 and a hello to a soldier in Afganistan. So who's the pinko now? Who's the anti-patriot?

Besides, my body is not the property of Dan Snyder and I reserve the right as an American to protest with, tee shirts tatoos and jeers till I'm blue in the face.

And, being as I've already purchased the product known as a season ticket with little or no hope of a refund, I intend to show up and do all of the above and if I get kicked out I intend to sue. I may even go so far as to get a class action suit together. In which case, I'll be exercising my enumerated right to my day in court.

Haasenpfeffer Author Profile Page :

The Supreme Court has made clear that private businesses or privately owned accommodations can always make rules that inhibit free speech. In fact, there are a lot of Supreme Court decisions on the subject. See, e.g, Marsh v. Alabama (1946). It is not at all clear that Snyder would win a free-speech challenge to his censorship of signs criticizing himself. I think he would have a hard time winning that case, actually. That is why, I surmise, that he appointed a lawyer to be in charge of stadium operations. In fact, his appointment of a lawyer to that position suggests to me that all of this was deliberately calculated well in advance. That is also why the lawyer made a big point of denying that his staff deliberately targeted signs critical of Snyder but claimed to have banned all signs for safety reasons.

Haasenpfeffer Author Profile Page :

The Supreme Court has made clear that private businesses or privately owned accommodations can always make rules that inhibit free speech. In fact, there are a lot of Supreme Court decisions on the subject. See, e.g, Marsh v. Alabama (1946). It is not at all clear that Snyder would win a free-speech challenge to his censorship of signs criticizing himself. I think he would have a hard time winning that case, actually. That is why, I surmise, that he appointed a lawyer to be in charge of stadium operations. In fact, his appointment of a lawyer to that position suggests to me that all of this was deliberately calculated well in advance. That is also why the lawyer made a big point of denying that his staff deliberately targeted signs critical of Snyder but claimed to have banned all signs for safety reasons.

Haasenpfeffer Author Profile Page :

My prior comment got garbled; I left out an important "not." The reality is a private business cannot always required patrons to relinquish their free speech rights. See Marsh v. Alabama.

A1232 Author Profile Page :

Join the plan to turn FedEx Field itself into a sign Snyder can't ban:

http://fire-snyder-sign.blogspot.com/

kenhyde Author Profile Page :


It's interesting the ban occurs at at at time when the owner is likely to see disparaging signs about the organization or himself. Who cares. I don't even have to consider "boycotting" the stadium, I never go there. "His rules", indeed. I wish Mr. Snyder would just take the ball and go home...


 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company