Interesting video from Outside the Lines regarding students at basketball games, specifically The Antlers at Mizzou and The Pit at Oregon. Raised a few questions:

1. Do students have a 1st Amendment right to yell whatever they want at games without any punishment?

2. If a student either pays their own tuition or has a parent/guardian do so, does that give them the right to yell whatever they want?

3. If a student has to buy tickets to attend a game, does that give them the right to yell what they want?

4. If there is a limit to how far a student section can go without being offensive, what is it?

In my opinion, the university holds the right to remove students from games since it's their event on what's usually their property. However, the 1st Amendment should protect students from academic discipline they may face from things said. Official student groups (i.e. pep band, cheerleaders) are held to a different standard just because they directly represent the university.

That being said, I would probably change the definition of what's obscene. Banning fairly harmless things like "nice shot a**hole" is being a little too sensitive, as is banning sexually explicit chants outright. Where the line is crossed is where you get into deeply personal attacks; I recall some student group out there chanted the name of a player's dead mother a year or so ago, that's just wrong.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10567965

IMO most of today's society needs to grow some thicker skin. We're trying to regulate social mores, which will only serve to exacerbate the problem. Parents need to learn how to raise their kids right, so the kids grow up learning how to respect others and treat everyone the way they would like to be treated. Today's society thinks heaping abuse on somebody is cool, which is 180° from how I was raised.

Bit, in general I agree with your first sentence. However, the rest of your statement is at odds with it.

Regulating social mores is not always a bad thing. That is often what keeps people from heaping abuse on others. When there is no agreed upon standard anymore of what is a "right" way to behave, this leads to the weakest among us getting trampled upon.

For example, my mother, a 60-year-old grandma who would never hurt a fly, had 4 large 16-18 year old males get in her face and scream at her for daring to wear a Butler shirt to a game at Xavier. That is not "free speech." In the old days, the problem would be solved by a man going over to their parents' house and having a talk with those kids. Today, that man would probably be arrested for attempting to do so.

I don't think that the police are the solution to everything. However our society has devolved to the point that it seems to be the first place people turn to solve their problems. If the University has it in their power to maintain decent standards of behavior so that the police don't have to get involved, I think they should do so.

(03-09-2014 11:35 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Interesting video from Outside the Lines regarding students at basketball games, specifically The Antlers at Mizzou and The Pit at Oregon. Raised a few questions:

1. Do students have a 1st Amendment right to yell whatever they want at games without any punishment?

2. If a student either pays their own tuition or has a parent/guardian do so, does that give them the right to yell whatever they want?

3. If a student has to buy tickets to attend a game, does that give them the right to yell what they want?

4. If there is a limit to how far a student section can go without being offensive, what is it?

In my opinion, the university holds the right to remove students from games since it's their event on what's usually their property. However, the 1st Amendment should protect students from academic discipline they may face from things said. Official student groups (i.e. pep band, cheerleaders) are held to a different standard just because they directly represent the university.

That being said, I would probably change the definition of what's obscene. Banning fairly harmless things like "nice shot a**hole" is being a little too sensitive, as is banning sexually explicit chants outright. Where the line is crossed is where you get into deeply personal attacks; I recall some student group out there chanted the name of a player's dead mother a year or so ago, that's just wrong.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10567965

1. No.
2. No
3. No
4. Extremely difficult to define and even harder to enforce any limitation

(03-09-2014 12:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Bit, in general I agree with your first sentence. However, the rest of your statement is at odds with it.

Regulating social mores is not always a bad thing. That is often what keeps people from heaping abuse on others. When there is no agreed upon standard anymore of what is a "right" way to behave, this leads to the weakest among us getting trampled upon.

For example, my mother, a 60-year-old grandma who would never hurt a fly, had 4 large 16-18 year old males get in her face and scream at her for daring to wear a Butler shirt to a game at Xavier. That is not "free speech." In the old days, the problem would be solved by a man going over to their parents' house and having a talk with those kids. Today, that man would probably be arrested for attempting to do so.

I don't think that the police are the solution to everything. However our society has devolved to the point that it seems to be the first place people turn to solve their problems. If the University has it in their power to maintain decent standards of behavior so that the police don't have to get involved, I think they should do so.

Freedom of speech should come with the freedom to get your butt kicked if you say the wrong thing.

Quote:Where the line is crossed is where you get into deeply personal attacks; I recall some student group out there chanted the name of a player's dead mother a year or so ago, that's just wrong.

I agree with this part. Remember several years ago, when ASU students chanted "PLO, PLO" at Steve Kerr, whose dad had been killed by terrorists? Yeah, that's crossing the line. Last year when NC State played Duke, the Blue Devils student section chanted "How's your grandma?" at Tyler Lewis, who had lost his grandma just a few weeks prior.

Generally I think whatever students do is fine, as long as they don't cross that personal attack line. There's a hilarious story about the Cal student section catfishing a Southern Cal player a few years ago. They posed as a woman online, exchanged phone numbers and made a date with the USC player. Then during the game, they started chanting her name and his phone number, getting in his head and completely destroying his game. That takes some serious dedication and creativity.

some students do take it way too far.

i would like to see any racial and "over the top" comments be removed.

by over the top i am talking about the personal s*** that students research about specific players before the game. certain matters should be off limits.

(03-09-2014 12:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 12:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Bit, in general I agree with your first sentence. However, the rest of your statement is at odds with it.

Regulating social mores is not always a bad thing. That is often what keeps people from heaping abuse on others. When there is no agreed upon standard anymore of what is a "right" way to behave, this leads to the weakest among us getting trampled upon.

For example, my mother, a 60-year-old grandma who would never hurt a fly, had 4 large 16-18 year old males get in her face and scream at her for daring to wear a Butler shirt to a game at Xavier. That is not "free speech." In the old days, the problem would be solved by a man going over to their parents' house and having a talk with those kids. Today, that man would probably be arrested for attempting to do so.

I don't think that the police are the solution to everything. However our society has devolved to the point that it seems to be the first place people turn to solve their problems. If the University has it in their power to maintain decent standards of behavior so that the police don't have to get involved, I think they should do so.

Freedom of speech should come with the freedom to get your butt kicked if you say the wrong thing.

So very true! The problem is a social fail at all levels starting in the home where parents are either too sorry to discipline their kids, or if they do discipline them the kid tells a teacher at school and the parents get the third degree from DFACS. Then at school the teacher who has to maintain control in the class is handcuffed by rules prohibiting corporal punishment administered in front of the class. In the past the teacher's ability to show who was in control was all that was needed to put a disruptive kid in their place. Now they get marched off to detention like a conquering hero instead of relegated to the their natural position in front of their peers. Then the principal gets tired of their antics and commands his/her staff to pass them through the system as quickly as possible. The police get tired of dealing with juveniles but muster on with attempting to modify their behavior but under great restraint.

The problem is that you're lucky if all you experience from them while in college is the intimidation of an elderly woman. In some cases older fans are assaulted outside the venue if not inside of it. If you dare react you will be arrested with the culprits but because you are a responsible citizen that works for people who care about those things the arrest will only hurt you and not the punks who don't give a *&%. God forbid you actually put one in his place because then his sorry parents will show up with a lawyer and bring suit and seek damages. And all the way through this sorry state of affairs the only rights that the system will be concerned with are those of the perpetrator.

I had a coach once that called the kids raised under the restrictions against punishment the "Seagull Generation". He said all they were good for was to flock around together, and squawk about what doesn't suit them, and crap all over everyone else's good day. He said that 40 years ago and every year now the next group makes him out to be a prophet if not a poet.

***BTW, the SEC now has venue rules against remarks issued at players or coaches that are either obscene or insensitive to their person. Ragging a pitcher is still okay if you stick to something like "Can't find that plate? It's in front of the guy in Black who's wearing a mask!" It's ridiculous but it had to come to that because of how bad it had gotten.

Conferences have different rules regarding noise makers like air horns and boom sticks during games. There's no reason they can't expand those same rules to language. These games are private sporting events and our 1st Amendment rights don't apply there. High schools enforce these rules all of the time and so should colleges.

(03-09-2014 12:15 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:35 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Interesting video from Outside the Lines regarding students at basketball games, specifically The Antlers at Mizzou and The Pit at Oregon. Raised a few questions:

1. Do students have a 1st Amendment right to yell whatever they want at games without any punishment?

2. If a student either pays their own tuition or has a parent/guardian do so, does that give them the right to yell whatever they want?

3. If a student has to buy tickets to attend a game, does that give them the right to yell what they want?

4. If there is a limit to how far a student section can go without being offensive, what is it?

In my opinion, the university holds the right to remove students from games since it's their event on what's usually their property. However, the 1st Amendment should protect students from academic discipline they may face from things said. Official student groups (i.e. pep band, cheerleaders) are held to a different standard just because they directly represent the university.

That being said, I would probably change the definition of what's obscene. Banning fairly harmless things like "nice shot a**hole" is being a little too sensitive, as is banning sexually explicit chants outright. Where the line is crossed is where you get into deeply personal attacks; I recall some student group out there chanted the name of a player's dead mother a year or so ago, that's just wrong.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10567965

1. No.
2. No
3. No
4. Extremely difficult to define and even harder to enforce any limitation

This is correct. The only smidgen of a chance of it being a First Amendment issue is if it's at a public university (as that's a government entity), but even then, that's a tough argument to make for a student. A ticket to a game isn't the same type of public sphere as, say, the middle of a campus quad. When you go to a game, you're technically entering into a contract to be there (see the fine print on the back of your ticket stub) that states you can be removed for any reason that security seems necessary. A court would likely deem incendiary speech to be the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't actually a fire - that's not protected by the First Amendment at all. You receive First Amendment protection on a public university quad that you don't at a public university basketball game.

Back in the 80s the student section of Arizona State chanted "PLO" and "Where's Your Dad" to Arizona guard Steve Kerr. Kerr's dad had been killed by Islamic militants in Beirut.

That was wayyy over the line and going back to what Bitcruncher posted they all deserved a good arse whipping.

(03-09-2014 12:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 12:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Bit, in general I agree with your first sentence. However, the rest of your statement is at odds with it.

Regulating social mores is not always a bad thing. That is often what keeps people from heaping abuse on others. When there is no agreed upon standard anymore of what is a "right" way to behave, this leads to the weakest among us getting trampled upon.

For example, my mother, a 60-year-old grandma who would never hurt a fly, had 4 large 16-18 year old males get in her face and scream at her for daring to wear a Butler shirt to a game at Xavier. That is not "free speech." In the old days, the problem would be solved by a man going over to their parents' house and having a talk with those kids. Today, that man would probably be arrested for attempting to do so.

I don't think that the police are the solution to everything. However our society has devolved to the point that it seems to be the first place people turn to solve their problems. If the University has it in their power to maintain decent standards of behavior so that the police don't have to get involved, I think they should do so.

Freedom of speech should come with the freedom to get your butt kicked if you say the wrong thing.

/thread

Frank's legal analysis is correct. You probably don't have a first amendment right to say whatever you want at a basketball game. It becomes a little less clear if we're talking about a public university, but I still think he's correct. The first amendment protects you from the government telling you what you can and can't say or punishing you for what you do say. That's not really the issue here.

As for whether anyone should limit what you can say in these circumstances, I think it's open to debate. The issue with regulating speech is that it's hard to know when to say when. We kind of know the limits when we see it or hear it. The Court has struggled with this on multiple occasions as well - particularly in trying to explain what "fighting words" are and what obscenity is. It's really difficult to draw this line.

In this context, at least take solace in the fact that in most basketball arenas idiots can be removed for being idiots.

If colleges do hold the right to kick out students for cheers, where's the line drawn? (for the record I agree with being able to throw them out of games, but it's interesting to discuss where that point is)

(03-11-2014 08:46 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  If colleges do hold the right to kick out students for cheers, where's the line drawn? (for the record I agree with being able to throw them out of games, but it's interesting to discuss where that point is)

Well the SEC drew the line at obscene, racial, sexual, and personal or other insensitive language or taunts. Now calling someone a racial or gender based slur is understandable. Cursing is understandable. Personal attacks are understandable, but we have had fans tossed at baseball games for calling the umpires "blind". That was held to be too insensitive for the sight impaired that may be at the game. So yeah, where to draw the line is going to be an issue.

(03-11-2014 03:55 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  Frank's legal analysis is correct. You probably don't have a first amendment right to say whatever you want at a basketball game. It becomes a little less clear if we're talking about a public university, but I still think he's correct. The first amendment protects you from the government telling you what you can and can't say or punishing you for what you do say. That's not really the issue here.

As for whether anyone should limit what you can say in these circumstances, I think it's open to debate. The issue with regulating speech is that it's hard to know when to say when. We kind of know the limits when we see it or hear it. The Court has struggled with this on multiple occasions as well - particularly in trying to explain what "fighting words" are and what obscenity is. It's really difficult to draw this line.

In this context, at least take solace in the fact that in most basketball arenas idiots can be removed for being idiots.

I think the fans should be the censors. Boo down the bad actors.

(03-09-2014 12:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 12:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Bit, in general I agree with your first sentence. However, the rest of your statement is at odds with it.

Regulating social mores is not always a bad thing. That is often what keeps people from heaping abuse on others. When there is no agreed upon standard anymore of what is a "right" way to behave, this leads to the weakest among us getting trampled upon.

For example, my mother, a 60-year-old grandma who would never hurt a fly, had 4 large 16-18 year old males get in her face and scream at her for daring to wear a Butler shirt to a game at Xavier. That is not "free speech." In the old days, the problem would be solved by a man going over to their parents' house and having a talk with those kids. Today, that man would probably be arrested for attempting to do so.

I don't think that the police are the solution to everything. However our society has devolved to the point that it seems to be the first place people turn to solve their problems. If the University has it in their power to maintain decent standards of behavior so that the police don't have to get involved, I think they should do so.

Freedom of speech should come with the freedom to get your butt kicked if you say the wrong thing.

Absolutely, it should. Even if it's delayed, the threat of future punishment would deter many.

But these days there are severe consequences for the people who would do so, even for just a verbal butt-whooping. Like I said, if I were to go over to those kids' houses to teach them how to respect their elders, their parents would likely call the cops on me before I said a word.