BRASSO Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) What if it was one of the conditions you agree to on buying a ticket? Basing that on: 1) DCP Community Guidelines that one agrees on before joining. 2) Signs in sporting events stating anyone using profanity will be tossed. For that matter what is to keep a show designer from claiming restriction of free speech because of DCI rules. "The message of my show requires obscenity or 22 minutes on the field or cannon fire or woodwinds or...." Profanity COULD be subject to conditions that COULD lead to legitimate eviction and not be a restriction of one's 1st Amendment Rights. But even here, there could be grounds for successful challenge that the conditions were an overreach and ambiguous at best as to what constituted " profanity " on the part of the person evicted for the use of " profanity ". Also, a judge would look to precedent as to what prompted the " no profanity " restriction on the part of the sponsor. Had the sporting event or show allowed " profanity " before without eviction ever taking place ? Was it selective eviction perhaps ? ..and other factors at play. Again, profanity is an area where one's Freedom of Speech rights are not neccessarily iron clad and inviolate. From a practical standpoint however, it might be better for the evictor sponsor to claim " unruly behavior " as the reason for eviction than " profanity ". "Unruly behaviour" is not generally protected under " Freedom of Speech " rights. Thats because it falls under the rights and responsibilities of a sponsor to provide adequate public safety to others in attendance at their show. But the clear burden before the law and the court is on the person or entity attempting to stifle another's 1st Amendment Rights... not the other way around. Thats why the notion that a group like DCI can enact "ANY rule" it wants restricting Freedom of Speech of people and it will automatically stand Constitutional muster is simply inaccurate. Edited September 30, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Profanity COULD be subject to conditions that COULD lead to legitimate eviction and not be a restriction of one's 1st Amendment Rights. But even here, there could be grounds for successful challenge that the conditions were an overreach and ambiguous at best as to what constituted " profanity " on the part of the person evicted for the use of " profanity ". Also, a judge would look to precedent as to what prompted the " no profanity " restriction on the part of the sponsor. Had the sporting event or show allowed " profanity " before without eviction ever taking place ? Was it selective eviction perhaps ? ..and other factors at play. Again, profanity is an area where one's Freedom of Speech rights are not neccessarily iron clad and inviolate. But the clear burden is on the person or entity attempting to stifle another's 1st Amendment rights... not the other way around. Boooing, or even talking loudly about my great pizza dinner, at the Chicago Symphony Hall during a performance (especially during the lush soft passages)..... Free Speech where I will not be thrown out correct? Edited September 30, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 Profanity COULD be subject to conditions that COULD lead to legitimate eviction and not be a restriction of one's 1st Amendment Rights. So, some speech is considered Free Speech and some speech is not considered Free Speech? Well bust my buttons!!! And who gets to determine what speech is free speech and what speech is restricted speech. The entity which creates the rule can determine that issue!!! The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Congress restricting speech, so where is the Federal Government placing their nose into your scenario creating that rule limiting the profanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Boooing, or even talking loudly about my great pizza dinner, at the Chicago Symphony Hall during a performance (especially during the lush soft passages)..... Free Speech where I will not be thrown out correct? Maybe. Maybe not. You can yell at an outdoor band concert with the 4th of July fireworks :" FIRE! " and be on solid ground via your Freedom of Speech protection Rights. But" no " you would not be allowed to yell " FIRE " in a crowded indoor theatre, like the Chicago Symphony Hall, Stu. Could DCI pass a rule that all fans stand up and cheer every Corps or be evicted ? Of course not. That'd be an infringement on a person's fundamental Freedom of Speech Rights..... the right to remain silent if they so wish. " No ", DCI can not pass any rule it wants restricting one's Freedom of Speech Rights. DCI would have to show cause. Without it, one's Freedom of Speech Rights are not left at the turnstyle when they enter a DCI show. Of course, the environment and the context is factored into the Freedom of Speech Rights, as are all the other Rights citizens enjoy. I'm surprised you would have to ask this, and not underatand that the environment is always factored into the Rights and the Limitations on one's Freedom of Speech Rights... and all the other Rights under the US Constitution as well. Edited September 30, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Maybe. Maybe not. You can yell at an outdoor band concert with the 4th of July fireworks :" FIRE! " and be on solid ground via your Freedom of Speech protection Rights. But" no " you would not be allowed to yell " FIRE " at a crowded indoor theatre... and " No ", DCI can not pass any rule it wants restricting one Freedom of Speech Rights. DCI would have to show cause. Without it, one's Freedom of Speech Rights are not left at the turnstyle when they enter a DCI show. Of course, the environment and the context is factored into the Freedom of Speech Rights, as are all the other Rights citizens enjoy. I'm surprised you would have to ask this, and not underatand that the environment is always factored into the Rights and the Limitations on one's Freedom of Speech Rights. Changing the parameters does not bode well for your position; I said yelling "Pizza" not fire; can I yell "Pizza, Pizza, Pizza" at an indoor Chicago Symphony performance during soft musical passages as a form of Free Speech without being thrown out of the hall? Edited September 30, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Changing the parameters does not bode well for your position; I said yelling "Pizza" not fire; can I yell "Pizza, Pizza, Pizza" at an indoor Chicago Symphony performance during soft musical passages as a form of Free Speech without being thrown out of the hall? Ok, then lets both agree to stay with DCI here for a minute Stu ( this is, afterall, not a Chicago Symphony patrons discussion board ). Since it is your position that " DCI can pass any rule it wants limiting any type of Freedom of Speech it wants" is it your position that ( for example ) DCI could pass a rule ( restricting their Freedom of Speech ) that all fans must stand and cheer each Corps after its performance or be evicted ? Edited September 30, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 Brasso: I have had to engage with this type of litigation a few times, so please do some research and you will discover that the following is fact: The First Amendment only limits the 'Federal Government's' ability to restrict speech so as to calm a person's fear of being arrested by the Federal Government; and that narrow limitation was the original intent of the authors of the Constitution. Even in the 21st Century any non-government organization, business or individual within the United States certainly can limit your freedom of speech 'within their own dominion'. The First Amendment does not guarantee you that you will get to stay at a concert if what you are saying becomes a nuisance to the people next to you, nor does it guarantee that a corps or band will get to perform if the corps or band violates the rules of the venue. Therefore, the place in which you are making those statements, or the corps/band is performing, certainly can limit what you say or what they perform at any time for any reason as long as you and the performing group are in their dominion. That is fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 Ok, then lets both agree to stay with DCI here for a minute Stu ( this is, afterall, not a Chicago Symphony patrons discussion board ). Since it is your position that " DCI can pass any rule it wants limiting any type of Freedom of Speech it wants" is it your position that ( for example ) DCI could pass a rule ( restricting their Freedom of Speech ) that all fans must stand and cheer each Corps after its performance or be evicted ? While I would consider it to be a rather dumb rule, DCI certainly does have the right, in their own dominion, to require everyone to cheer every corps if they desired to create such a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) While I would consider it to be a rather dumb rule, DCI certainly does have the right, in their own dominion, to require everyone to cheer every corps if they desired to create such a rule. The thread is not on the wisdom of a rule. The thread discussion is on the legality of what DCI is permitted to do. You are mistaken if you beleve that a paying customer could be legally evicted for failure to stand and cheer a Corps performance..... no matter the fact that DCI passed such an unwise rule. One's restriction of Freedom of Speech rights under the Constitution must show cause on the part of the entity denying the Freedom of Speech right. The burden would be on DCI to establish rational reasons before the court for the restriction of one's Freedom of Speech inherent rights. Rights under the Constitution not afforded Federal and State Governments by statue and precedent automatically accrue to the individual. The court would more than likely deem such a rule bt DCI as coersive and arbitrary on the rights of the imdividual and would therefore be considered without Constitutional standing. DCI can do whatever it wants. But it is inaccurate that any rule that they impose that limits one's Freedom of Speech is within their domain. It is not. And it is not DCI that will determine what they can do for a rule. It is the Court that will decide. The US Constitution is in THEIR dominion, not DCI's. And the court does not give great lattitude to large organizations to restrict the individual citizen's Freedom of Speech willy nilly, and certainly not as liberally as you appear to believe, Stu. Edited September 30, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 The thread is not on the wisdom of a rule. The thread discussion is on the legality of what DCI is permitted to do. You are mistaken if you beleve that a paying customer could be evicted for failure to stand and cheer a Corps performance..... no matter the fact that DCI passed such an unwise rule. One's restriction of Freedom of Speech rights under the Constitution must show cause. The burden would be on DCI to establish rational reasons before the court for the restriction of one's Freedom of Speech inherent rights. The court would more than likely deem such a rule coersive and arbitrary and without Constitutional standing. DCI can do whatever it wants. But it is inaccurate that any rule that they impose that limits one's Freedom of Speech is within their domain. It is not. And it is not DCI that will determine what they can do for a rule. It is the Court that will decide. The US Constitution is in their dominion, not DCI's. And the court does not give great lattitude to large organizations to restrict the individual citizen's Freedom of Speech willy nilly, and certainly not as liberally as you appear to believe, Stu. I don't know, Brasso. As long as DCI was clear when selling the tickets that attendance included a requirement to "participate" as directed by DCI, I think they could indeed do this. (Or "not participate": I was a competitor on a TV game show once and was able to have a few free tickets held for friends who lived near the taping site. A week's worth of shows was taped over the course of one day, and competitors not yet called for any given "day's" show sat in the audience in a segregated section right across the aisle from where competitors' guests sat. When I came into the studio from the backstage with the other contestants to wait my turn in the audience, I saw my friends and waved, but they sat stone-faced. They had been instructed (though I had not been told) that any interaction with the contestants could result in their and my expulsion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts