PFT: Code of fan conduct comes under legal attack

[cowboyjoe]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/code-of-conduct-comes-under-legal-attack/
Note, I didnt post what the little boy was doing with his finger tsk, what are the parents doing, tsk, tsk ;)

Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2011, 10:25 PM EDT


Every NFL team has adopted a code of fan conduct, requiring ticket holders to refrain from certain behaviors — and reserving the right to eject them if they fail to comply. In San Diego, a judge has found that policy to conflict with the First Amendment.

Though the legal action doesn’t directly challenge the legality of the code of conduct, Judge Gale Kaneshiro previously threw out battery charges brought against a fan who allegedly punched and bit a security guard while the guard was trying to remove the fan for yelling obscenities and flashing the middle finger to other fans. The judge reasoned that the fan had a right under the First Amendment to express obscenities, and that the fan had a right to defend himself when the guard tried to physically force the fan to leave.

[Sam I Am]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/code-of-conduct-comes-under-legal-attack/
Note, I didnt post what the little boy was doing with his finger tsk, what are the parents doing, tsk, tsk ;)

Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2011, 10:25 PM EDT


Every NFL team has adopted a code of fan conduct, requiring ticket holders to refrain from certain behaviors — and reserving the right to eject them if they fail to comply. In San Diego, a judge has found that policy to conflict with the First Amendment.

Though the legal action doesn’t directly challenge the legality of the code of conduct, Judge Gale Kaneshiro previously threw out battery charges brought against a fan who allegedly punched and bit a security guard while the guard was trying to remove the fan for yelling obscenities and flashing the middle finger to other fans. The judge reasoned that the fan had a right under the First Amendment to express obscenities, and that the fan had a right to defend himself when the guard tried to physically force the fan to leave.

That's stupid and wrong. The teams/facilities have the right to remove someone from their grounds if they are causing a disturbance and they believe it puts other fans safety at risk. What if they called the police to have him removed and he punched and bit the police? Is that okay judge? I think not. That's called assaulting an officer.

Idiot.

[Hagman]

I wonder what the judge would do if people cursed and shot each other the bird in his court? He'd have a different interpretation of the First Amendment then...............

[zrinkill]

I wonder what the judge would do if people cursed and shot each other the bird in his court? He'd have a different interpretation of the First Amendment then...............

:bow:

[Sam I Am]

I wonder what the judge would do if people cursed and shot each other the bird in his court? He'd have a different interpretation of the First Amendment then...............

+1 Excellent point.

[Doomsday101]

I wonder what the judge would do if people cursed and shot each other the bird in his court? He'd have a different interpretation of the First Amendment then...............

Great point, seem the 1st amendment does not apply in judges courtroom. Cell phone goes off many judge will lose it and get after the person with the phone. We had an employee who was charged with contempt of court because he and his crew were doing some construction work in the court next door and did not stop after being told to by the judge.

I'm really sick of judges who think the world revolves around them and their narrow interpretation of the constitution. 1st amendment protects us from Government not from privately ran business.

[peplaw06]

Great point, seem the 1st amendment does not apply in judges courtroom. Cell phone goes off many judge will lose it and get after the person with the phone. We had an employee who was charged with contempt of court because he and his crew were doing some construction work in the court next door and did not stop after being told to by the judge.

I'm really sick of judges who think the world revolves around them and their narrow interpretation of the constitution. 1st amendment protects us from Government not from privately ran business.I agree with this, except that I think you meant to say a broad interpretation of the Constitution in this instance.

A ticket is a license to be at the game and in your seat for the game. Most tickets have terms of use on the back, and they will usually say that the team reserves the right to refuse their entry or staying in the stadium for certain reasons. I'm guessing, but I would think the license would cover these situations. If it's not a government action, and the license covers this, the team should be within their rights to remove the "fan."

[Doomsday101]

I agree with this, except that I think you meant to say a broad interpretation of the Constitution in this instance.

A ticket is a license to be at the game and in your seat for the game. Most tickets have terms of use on the back, and they will usually say that the team reserves the right to refuse their entry or staying in the stadium for certain reasons. I'm guessing, but I would think the license would cover these situations. If it's not a government action, and the license covers this, the team should be within their rights to remove the "fan."

Your correct and thanks for making the correction in my error.

[burmafrd]

I bet this will get over turned.

That is BS to throw out charges of assault in this case. Typical stupid judge.

[superpunk]

I bet this will get over turned.

That is BS to throw out charges of assault in this case. Typical stupid judge.
Would he be smart if he did the opposite?

Or would you prefer anarchy?

Or, when it comes to our legal system, are all your responses generated by some sort of auto-pilot lawyer/judge-hating supercomputer?

[Sam I Am]

Would he be smart if he did the opposite?

Or would you prefer anarchy?

Or, when it comes to our legal system, are all your responses generated by some sort of auto-pilot lawyer/judge-hating supercomputer?

What do the first and and second have to do with each other? The Judge throwing out the charges promotes possibility of anarchy. (giving people who cause trouble less of a reason not too) As for the first, it's not that it makes him smart, it is the correct thing to do. The guy assaulted someone on private property and should have charges pressed against him.

[burmafrd]

Would he be smart if he did the opposite?

Or would you prefer anarchy?

Or, when it comes to our legal system, are all your responses generated by some sort of auto-pilot lawyer/judge-hating supercomputer?


Wow. You really need to get a life.

I calls em as I sees em. If that ticks you off, then I am even happier.

[superpunk]

Wow. You really need to get a life.

I calls em as I sees em. If that ticks you off, then I am even happier.

oh ok so option 3 then.

[burmafrd]

oh ok so option 3 then.


I see I will have to make the language simpler so that you can understand.

[Reality]

Most tickets have terms of use on the back, and they will usually say that the team reserves the right to refuse their entry or staying in the stadium for certain reasons.

This is the relevant legal part. By using the ticket, you are agreeing to the rules and requirements set forth in the terms of use. If you do not agree, you are free to not use the ticket and watch the game elsewhere.

I have not been following that case but the only legal angle I can surmise that the plaintiff is using is that the stadium is owned by a government entity. If it were a privately owned stadium, the first amendment would not be applicable.

However, even if it is a government owned stadium, most cities and townships have catch-all laws such as Disturbing the Peace that could be applied as justification for removing anyone.

The only legal recourse I can imagine that fan will have (and this would be at best) would be to receive the face value of the tickets and parking fees as restitution.

However, I think the "terms of use" as peplaw stated will ultimately doom the fan's claim.

-Reality

[hipfake08]

I wonder what the judge would do if people cursed and shot each other the bird in his court? He'd have a different interpretation of the First Amendment then...............

If it is a professional sports venue then you should come to expect it.

If it's a court of law. No.

As long as you pose no threat to others - which in this case cursing and yelling at a game go hand in hand - then you should be in the clear.
If you threaten with violence then you have problems.
Say your and Eagles fan and your season is going down the tubes. You have a right to Boo, Curse, Scream in anguish.

[sago1]

A questionable decision to say the least. No person has the right to enter a stadium, a store or even an airplane w/o a ticket. Individuals by purchasing those tickets agree to standards of decency to remain in the place; if their act is outrageous you better believe any company, etc. have the right to eject a fan, etc. This judge's decision wouldn't stand up; it will be shot down.

[casmith07]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/code-of-conduct-comes-under-legal-attack/
Note, I didnt post what the little boy was doing with his finger tsk, what are the parents doing, tsk, tsk ;)

Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2011, 10:25 PM EDT


Every NFL team has adopted a code of fan conduct, requiring ticket holders to refrain from certain behaviors — and reserving the right to eject them if they fail to comply. In San Diego, a judge has found that policy to conflict with the First Amendment.

Though the legal action doesn’t directly challenge the legality of the code of conduct, Judge Gale Kaneshiro previously threw out battery charges brought against a fan who allegedly punched and bit a security guard while the guard was trying to remove the fan for yelling obscenities and flashing the middle finger to other fans. The judge reasoned that the fan had a right under the First Amendment to express obscenities, and that the fan had a right to defend himself when the guard tried to physically force the fan to leave.

Not a violation, in my opinion. If the purchase of a ticket is a legally binding contract in exchange for the benefit conveyed by the team (entertainment), then you agree to refrain from certain activities, particularly activities that are detrimental to the entertainment of other contract-holders, i.e. ticket-buying fans.

If the government can limit what is said on television and airwaves and determine what is censored, then I see no problem with sports teams, who's teams are also shown on television and over airwaves, limting or censoring the same conduct.

Just my opinion.

[tomson75]

If it is a professional sports venue then you should come to expect it.

If it's a court of law. No.

As long as you pose no threat to others - which in this case cursing and yelling at a game go hand in hand - then you should be in the clear.
If you threaten with violence then you have problems.
Say your and Eagles fan and your season is going down the tubes. You have a right to Boo, Curse, Scream in anguish.

....to an extent. When you turn your aggression or displeasure towards other ticket holders you've eclipsed those "expectations of behavior" IMO. Middle finger salutations directed towards other fans in your proximity can easily be considered aggressive behavior....one that will likely escalate into an assault or battery. Which, in this case, it did.

[kmd24]

I don't see how they can argue self defense. I have always been under the impression that self defense required an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Though sometimes officers will abuse their position, I think it's unlikely that he was threatening the fan with serious injury as a means to remove the fan from the venue.

[Plumfool]

I thought in the state of California it was illegal to use profanity in public?