Blackout Arrowhead: Nov 18 vs Bengals - Reserve Your Gear Today

[Dave Lane]

Pioli's panties are in a bunch for sure!

[kcpasco]

Doesn't Jackson county own the parking lot?

[Ebolapox]

I notice that the tv broadcast doesn't show like ANY crowd shots for the most part.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

It's publicly funded taxpayer owned land and facilities.

The Chiefs have absolutely NO RIGHT to force people to leave due to a sign asking to fire the head man. That's ludicrous.

I hope the national media jumps all over this deal.

It's a privately owned venue. There is no freedom of speech.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by jspchief

It's a privately owned venue. There is no freedom of speech.

I'm not a lawyer, so again... dumb question.

But if you pay for goods and services, shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of getting that good and service? And if you don't, shouldn't you be able to demand a refund unless there is a very good explanation for why you were not allowed in?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by jspchief

It's a privately owned venue. There is no freedom of speech.

You may be right, but I have a lot of trouble believing you can take someone's money (for the ticket) and refuse to deliver the service they paid for just because they made you feel poopy in your pants.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by jspchief

It's a privately owned venue. There is no freedom of speech.

This. I'm surprised at the number of people who do not understand what "freedom of speech" does and does not protect them from.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

This. I'm surprised at the number of people who do not understand what "freedom of speech" does and does not protect them from.

Bring litigation against us all...

[siberian khatru]

I guess nobody bothered to read the link I posted. Here's an excerpt:

The debate, like most sports law arguments, is nuanced and complex. Classic public forum free-speech issues, for example, would generally not be applicable at privately owned facilities hosting games, like college basketball games at private universities. Privately owned teams can also contend that a fan’s purchase of a ticket is in fact a contract with the team to conform to a code of conduct, which could include a prohibition on excessive yelling at the officials. But many stadiums and arenas constructed with some public financing, or built on state land or land operated by a municipal authority, could be viewed as public entities. In that setting, a government cannot force citizens to surrender constitutional rights like free speech.

There is some leeway, but where is the line drawn, and on which side does a fan yelling at a referee stand?

“It is an interesting question, and we don’t have an exemplary test case that settles every aspect,” said Scott Rosner, a sports business and law professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “But traditionally, courts have come down on the side that free speech at a sporting event has limits. It is a right that is revocable — maybe because the few fans that come before courts have really overdone it.”

......

But the legal precedents for those interpretations are hard to come by, perhaps for two contrasting reasons, lawyers said. Fans who might have good cases for seemingly unjust ejections are rarely arrested; they are only removed from the event. They may be upset afterward but not aggrieved enough to follow through with a lengthy lawsuit. The other reason is that when a fan does file a civil suit over an ejection, it is almost always settled before a trial because team owners and arena owners fear a landmark case establishing fans’ rights.

“Imagine if a higher court took on such a case?” said Mark Conrad, an associate professor of sports law at Fordham University’s School of Business. “Facility owners would be quaking over anything like that because it could open the floodgates.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/sp...l?pagewanted=2

Is there anything written on the back of the tickets, or any signs posted in the parking lot, that prohibit handing out literature or anything like that?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

I guess nobody bothered to read the link I posted. Here's an excerpt:

The debate, like most sports law arguments, is nuanced and complex. Classic public forum free-speech issues, for example, would generally not be applicable at privately owned facilities hosting games, like college basketball games at private universities. Privately owned teams can also contend that a fan’s purchase of a ticket is in fact a contract with the team to conform to a code of conduct, which could include a prohibition on excessive yelling at the officials. But many stadiums and arenas constructed with some public financing, or built on state land or land operated by a municipal authority, could be viewed as public entities. In that setting, a government cannot force citizens to surrender constitutional rights like free speech.

There is some leeway, but where is the line drawn, and on which side does a fan yelling at a referee stand?

“It is an interesting question, and we don’t have an exemplary test case that settles every aspect,” said Scott Rosner, a sports business and law professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “But traditionally, courts have come down on the side that free speech at a sporting event has limits. It is a right that is revocable — maybe because the few fans that come before courts have really overdone it.”

......

But the legal precedents for those interpretations are hard to come by, perhaps for two contrasting reasons, lawyers said. Fans who might have good cases for seemingly unjust ejections are rarely arrested; they are only removed from the event. They may be upset afterward but not aggrieved enough to follow through with a lengthy lawsuit. The other reason is that when a fan does file a civil suit over an ejection, it is almost always settled before a trial because team owners and arena owners fear a landmark case establishing fans’ rights.

“Imagine if a higher court took on such a case?” said Mark Conrad, an associate professor of sports law at Fordham University’s School of Business. “Facility owners would be quaking over anything like that because it could open the floodgates.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/sp...l?pagewanted=2

Is there anything written on the back of the tickets, or any signs posted in the parking lot, that prohibit handing out literature or anything like that?

Good to know, though I doubt anything changes here. I think the best we can hope for is that the media makes a stink about it.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm not a lawyer, so again... dumb question.

But if you pay for goods and services, shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation of getting that good and service? And if you don't, shouldn't you be able to demand a refund unless there is a very good explanation for why you were not allowed in?

The Chiefs aren't the only team that dictates what signs are allowed. The entire NFL does it. They may pick their battles, but ultimately they decide what shit they will put up with.

I'm sure they've covered their legal bases on the issue.

You might feel its bullshit. But there is no protected right to express yourself in a private building.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by jspchief

The Chiefs aren't the only team that dictates what signs are allowed. The entire NFL does it. They may pick their battles, but ultimately they decide what shit they will put up with.

I'm sure they've covered their legal bases on the issue.

You might feel its bullshit. But there is no protected right to express yourself in a private building.

You're probably right, but I do hope this blows up in terms of PR. That's pretty shitty that they're censoring fans now, even if they can technically get away with it legally.

[siberian khatru]

Sam Mellinger ‏@mellinger
If you didn't know any better and just showed up at Arrowhead and looked at the crowd, you'd think the home team's color is black.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Sam Mellinger ‏@mellinger
If you didn't know any better and just showed up at Arrowhead and looked at the crowd, you'd think the home team's color is black.

****ing awesome. Its what I saw in the parking lots all day when handing out the flyers

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by jspchief

The Chiefs aren't the only team that dictates what signs are allowed. The entire NFL does it. They may pick their battles, but ultimately they decide what shit they will put up with.

I'm sure they've covered their legal bases on the issue.

You might feel its bullshit. But there is no protected right to express yourself in a private building.

Yes, signs, because they say they will disrupt others viewing..

They cannot kick you out on a tshirt that has no vulgarity.. If they do, you take them to court for your ticket costs, parking and triple damages.. and looking at the other article posted, that is the case across the board for people being unjustly removed that were not disrupting other fans..