gmac17 Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 The fact that ownership is doing this at all just shows me how insecure they are. You can't take a little ribbing on a small cardboard cut-out? Wow. And where's the support here? I figured more of yall would be feeling the same way... I don't disagree that it's petty and stupid, but they can do whatever they want. That's what people are saying here. The county owning it has nothing to do with it. Do you think you can walk in and say whatever you want at any county owned facility just because the county owns it? As far as the mularkey is mularkey sign - do you think TD is up in the booth deciding what signs go and what stay? They told security no disparaging signs, and some $9 hour cowboy took it away. I'd also say that most other teams would do the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 I understand that. But "they can do whatever they want" doesn't equate to the should do whatever they want. If a sign isn't disparaging, inappropriate, etc., then you should be able to keep it. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 It's funny that TD is more concerned with his national appearance than his local. Taking the signs away just makes his local reputation worse (if that's possible) and the only thing it prevents are the signs being shown on highlight shows for the national audience. 536107[/snapback] Yeah sure. So if some assclown with a sign gets into a fight in the stands and an innocent bystander happens to get injured, that's OK because they had a "right?" to do what they wanted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "owner" of Ralph Wilson Stadium is the County of Erie. Shouldn't that make it a public place subject to the full gambit of the first ammendment? Ralph and the Bills lease it. ... 536130[/snapback] You're wrong. The lease with the county gives the Bills EXCLUSIVE right to set policy as they see fit (as per the NFL norm for teams with municipally-owned stadiums). The county "owns" a lot of facilities used for business (via leases with the ECIDA). That doesn't mean they're public properties, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Wow. Interesting response... to the detractors... 1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "owner" of Ralph Wilson Stadium is the County of Erie. Shouldn't that make it a public place subject to the full gambit of the first ammendment? Ralph and the Bills lease it. 2) STOP using the old "the stadium is a place of business". Yes, literally it is. But, it is unlike every other place of business that you have or will ever know. There are no logical comparisons that should be made between a Xerox office and the Ralph. Sports is sports. So just stop. And so, don't give me this b.s. about walking into a restaurant and wearing a "This food sucks" shirt because I can. One, the restaurant is a private place, as stated. Secondly, and more importantly, bringing signs into a restaurant is not customary; yelling at the top of your lungs is not normal while dining; and chucking peanuts on the floor is very rare. Those are, however, well-established commonplace, accepted actions happening nationwide in sports stadiums all the time. 3) The post made about the Bills' policy: "Banners and signs are generally permitted, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs..." The only way that a "Mularkey is mularkey" sign should be confiscated is if it is inappropriate. And how, in the world, is that sign inappropriate? If anything, that would be the appropriate way to vent your frustration at a coach: with humor, not vulgarity. 4) And you, "parade in front of your work" guy. Please. First, that's silly. Second, I WILL let anyone parade in front of my work. Shoot, I'll let 70,000 parade if they want to (provided, of course, that they all pay $40). I'll take some funny pictures, make a nice $2.8 million, and fix the lawn after. Not bad for one Sunday afternoon. 5) "Patdown" guy. I love my civil liberties. Obviously. I also love not getting blown-up. So (and I can't believe I actually have to explain this), I am cool with the patdowns cuz bulky jackets can contain lots of stuff. I am not cool with the confiscation of harmless signs that are not inappropriate, obstructive, mean, disparaging, racist, or anything else. The fact that ownership is doing this at all just shows me how insecure they are. You can't take a little ribbing on a small cardboard cut-out? Wow. And where's the support here? I figured more of yall would be feeling the same way... 536130[/snapback] Let's try it this way then... When you purchase a ticket, you are in effect executing a contract that gives you the right to watch a sporting event. That is the only right guaranteed you by that ticket. Read one of the things some time. Nowhere will you see "freedom of speech" guaranteed in the purchase. Your buying a ticket to a Bills game does not contractually obligate them to allow you to do whatever you want, and the First Amendment does not protect your freedom of speeci within a private contract. Don't believe me? Try breaking a NDA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 If a sign isn't disparaging, inappropriate, etc., then you should be able to keep it. Simple as that. 536148[/snapback] Because? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 Because? 536178[/snapback] Because of the policy that the Bills themselves put forth: "... signs are generally permitted, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs the view for other guests will be removed." If the sign isn't any of these things, why take it away? Folks, I am now in full-understanding about the limits of freedoms in private places. I get it. I am not debating the powers of a private owner to do that which he pleases. I am arguing that many of the signs confiscated last night should not have been. According to their own specific policy, inoffensive signs are allowed. Also, use common sense here. It's a football game! Varying acts of expression (half-naked men, facepainting, costumes, and yes, signs) are part of going to the game. Take that away, and you end up as a louder golf audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Because of the policy that the Bills themselves put forth: "... signs are generally permitted, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs the view for other guests will be removed." If the sign isn't any of these things, why take it away? Folks, I am now in full-understanding about the limits of freedoms in private places. I get it. I am not debating the powers of a private owner to do that which he pleases. I am arguing that many of the signs confiscated last night should not have been. According to their own specific policy, inoffensive signs are allowed. Also, use common sense here. It's a football game! Varying acts of expression (half-naked men, facepainting, costumes, and yes, signs) are part of going to the game. Take that away, and you end up as a louder golf audience. 536189[/snapback] Of course, who determines what the definition of "offensive" or "inappropriate" is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 What gives security the right to take away signs if they are not profane, racist, etc.? Why can the fans not express their right to say that Tom Donahoe sucks, or "Mularkey is mularkey"? This isn't Beijing for crying out loud. I was so pissed last night... I can't hold up a sign that says, "Fire Donahoe?" Is that sign hurting anyone? Honestly, only one man's feelings might be hurt. Legally, do they have the right to do that anyway? What's the word on this? 535910[/snapback] You are also "free" to write a letter of thanks for being able to attend an NFL football game for $40.00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 What gives security the right to take away signs if they are not profane, racist, etc.? Why can the fans not express their right to say that Tom Donahoe sucks, or "Mularkey is mularkey"? This isn't Beijing for crying out loud. I was so pissed last night... I can't hold up a sign that says, "Fire Donahoe?" Is that sign hurting anyone? Honestly, only one man's feelings might be hurt. Legally, do they have the right to do that anyway? What's the word on this? 535910[/snapback] You are mistaking the Constitutional First Ammendment, which guarantees that the Government will not pass a law to abridge free speech with a private business- the Buffalo Bills are not the government. It is perfectly legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Because of the policy that the Bills themselves put forth: "... signs are generally permitted, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs the view for other guests will be removed." If the sign isn't any of these things, why take it away? Folks, I am now in full-understanding about the limits of freedoms in private places. I get it. I am not debating the powers of a private owner to do that which he pleases. I am arguing that many of the signs confiscated last night should not have been. According to their own specific policy, inoffensive signs are allowed. Also, use common sense here. It's a football game! Varying acts of expression (half-naked men, facepainting, costumes, and yes, signs) are part of going to the game. Take that away, and you end up as a louder golf audience. 536189[/snapback] I think we're in agreement. Yes, it sucks. Yes, they should have been able to keep the signs. It's petty, lame, ridiculous, and moronic - all at the same time. I think it's a case of TD going on the defensive. I don't agree with it one bit, but they're well within the right to yank 'em. -Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 What does it say about the owner and the president of this club when fans may express themselves in positive forms but are censored from expressing anything negative? We're not talking "Kill the GM" here. What could they possibly be afraid of? What threat could a mis-informed, vocal minority of malcontents be? How could public displays of disapproval possibly influence a rational, contented majority of Bills fans? Sorry, Stiffler. It's not about what you want. It's all about what they want. They 'll live with 4-12 seasons because the money keeps rolling in. But "Fire Donahoe" and "Mularkey is mularkey" is just not good for business. Put yourself in their shoes. It's bad enough when a regular customer finds a cockroach in their meal, but when they announce it a dining room full of other regulars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Read the back of your tickets sometime. I don't know what the Ticketmaster tickets say, but the Season tickets basically remove all your "rights" once you pass through the gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Actually many of your rights are lost when you BUY the ticket (i.e. They can change the time or day of the game without consulting you and they can add new rules like pat downs even after you bought the tickets). There WERE signs, you just had to be more creative about it. But if you want to preserve your rights, don't buy a ticket. The Bills staff even told people to erase messages written in the snow - it happened to Harvey (Albany, NY) during Patriots game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 What does it say about the owner and the president of this club when fans may express themselves in positive forms but are censored from expressing anything negative? We're not talking "Kill the GM" here. What could they possibly be afraid of? What threat could a mis-informed, vocal minority of malcontents be? How could public displays of disapproval possibly influence a rational, contented majority of Bills fans? Sorry, Stiffler. It's not about what you want. It's all about what they want. They 'll live with 4-12 seasons because the money keeps rolling in. But "Fire Donahoe" and "Mularkey is mularkey" is just not good for business. Put yourself in their shoes. It's bad enough when a regular customer finds a cockroach in their meal, but when they announce it a dining room full of other regulars... 536298[/snapback] Good post. Although, I think there are more fans upset by the ownership's petty censorship than there would have been fans influenced by negative signs at the games. There's enough negativity in the papers and on TV already that it shouldn't be an issue. On the other hand, nobody likes censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 That Stadium was built with public money and it is owned by Erie County.Therefore,the right of free speech should prevail.....http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/BuffaloBills/ 536458[/snapback] Uh...no. Again, the ticket represents a contractual obligation on your part to behave yourself according to the presenter of the private spectacle that has provided you the ticket. The Bills are well within their rights to censor whomever they want, no matter how stupid and petty it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Why didn't you just wear something orange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 That Stadium was built with public money and it is owned by Erie County.Therefore,the right of free speech should prevail.....http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/BuffaloBills/ 536458[/snapback] Not quite, your ticket... but, others have already covered that. Using this argument, I could go down to my nephew's boy scout meeting (private event) at the park up the street (built with taxpayer dollars) and shout whatever I want about the inept cub scout den leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 You are missing the point. Comparing a cubscout meeting to a SPORTING EVENT is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they both are private functions that are happening in a public place... but it is not customary for a boy scout meeting to be comprised of people vocally shout out their displeasure. At a sporting event, it is. People boo all the time. The entire crowd boo'ed during Mularkey's intelligent pooch punt call at the Bronco's 33 that resulted in a net gain of 13 yards. By your logic, I suppose that all fans voicing their displeasure should be kicked out? Not quite, your ticket... but, others have already covered that. Using this argument, I could go down to my nephew's boy scout meeting (private event) at the park up the street (built with taxpayer dollars) and shout whatever I want about the inept cub scout den leader. 536519[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 You are missing the point. Comparing a cubscout meeting to a SPORTING EVENT is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they both are private functions that are happening in a public place... but it is not customary for a boy scout meeting to be comprised of people vocally shout out their displeasure. At a sporting event, it is. People boo all the time. The entire crowd boo'ed during Mularkey's intelligent pooch punt call at the Bronco's 33 that resulted in a net gain of 13 yards. By your logic, I suppose that all fans voicing their displeasure should be kicked out? 536521[/snapback] Should be? No. But can the organization leasing the venue choose to evict people they deem disruptive to their event? Absolutely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts