Suppose your neighbor came over and posted a sign contrary to your belief system (legalize pot now, impeach bush, down with unions, whatever) in your front yard. You'd want to take it down, most likely, and you probably would. Suppose further that your neighbor put it up when you invited him over for a barbeque, and it was byob, or byo side dishes, whatever. Does the fact that he spent some money on the endeavor make it all right for him to post said sign on your lawn?
Why then, do so many sports fans believe that when they purchase a ticket to a football, baseball, basketball, etc. game, they have a God-given right to put up whatever signs they want? The arena is not theirs. In many cases, the stadium is privately owned, much like your front yard. And if the owners don't agree with your sign, how is it different or wrong for them to take that sign away? The recent events in Buffalo show that people believe that they have a right to post whatever signs they want on private property, because they spent ( usually, way too much) money to get in.
"Just because the management and coaching is awful, where do they get off violating our First Amendment right to freedom of speech?" said one season ticket holder in the link above. He believes that since they can put up signs cheering the team, he should be able to put one up that jeers the coach and manager. Bear in mind that the stadium's website says that fans may bring signs, but management can remove any signs that management determines is dangerous, obstructive, or inappropriate - something the fan notes at the end of the article ("that's where they get you"). I also disagree with the assertion that this fan's freedom of speech has been violated. The fan can jeer the coach and management at home, in his car, even at the stadium through his voice, though I suspect that if he gets too venomoous, he may be asked to leave then, too. And why not? If my neighbor came over and started insulting me, I'd invite him to leave, as well. That's not stifling his freedom of speech.
It's a ticket to watch a game. It's not carte blanche to insult the person providing you the entertainment. If you dislike what's happening so much (and remember, I'm a Detroit Lions fan), then stop going to the games. Stop buying the season tickets and hurt them where they'll listen - their wallet. In sports, that's the most effective speech there is.
2 comments:
Matthew may jest, but I think he's right. The moment there's taxpayer money underlying a forum, the First Amendment argument shifts in favor of the taxpayer, and away from the forum's ostensible owner. All I can is that I'm grateful American stadiums are as civil as they are. In Britain, at least in the 1970s and 1980s, it wasn't at all unusual for the football thugs to hurl cups of urine into the stands or to beat people into comas. I'll take a sill or offensive sign anytime over that!
I see what you're saying, Bookworm, and I agree that there is merit in your argument. However, with as many people as have utilized federal aid in purchasing their homes, and with military bases being built on tax dollars (and open to the public for certain events), then arguably that same right to unencumbered speech should extend to those venues as well. Yet they aren't. The right of the owners in the home situation, and the need for order on the military installation trump the taxpayer's interest stemming from the taxes paid. At the end of the day, the deed to the property lies with one U.S. person (an individual, company, or whatever), and with the responsibility for maintenance and profit comes the right to manage what is said by those who visit.
Again, the civil rights of the fan is not being infringed. He's not being told you can't disagree with me or dislike me. He's not being told that he can't put up signs displaying said dislike. He's simply being told he can't put up those signs on this owner's property.
Post a Comment