Madison Square Garden’s surveillance system banned fan over his T-shirt design

Stembolt

Madison Square Garden’s surveillance system banned this fan over his T-shirt design

egeezer

Stembolt
Ah, yes… it’s interesting how MSG’s determination of “offensive” can be stretched to punish and “make an example” of those who are even remotely associated with an undesirable viewpoint.

With respect to that method, the old phrase “What goes around, comes around”. Those who legitimize such practices may see them implemented in unintended ways.

px_eliezer_

Stembolt

That is TRULY frightening.

Right now I am on Optimum Cable—which thankfully is NO LONGER part of the same company as MSG—or else I might be in trouble with them myself.

dave

Stembolt

Seems like a snowflake move - someone made fun of the owner of this money-making enterprise, so he wants revenge.

takeahike

Stembolt

Cohen vs. California, 403 US 15 (1971)

Facts of the case

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with “FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR” The young man, Paul Cohen, was charged under a California statute that prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct.” Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Question

Did California’s statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as “Fuck the Draft,” violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).

px_eliezer_

GrumpyCanadian

If he wasn’t offered a refund for an event that he wasn’t allowed to enjoy, then I think it’s time to dispute the charge with the issuer of his credit card (assuming that’s how he paid). If nothing else, that will get their attention.

broknsymetry

I’ve heard that MSG can give you headaches.

GrumpyCanadian

dave Don’t worry, your country has no monopoly on stupidity. A similar situation just happened in the Toronto area. A Blue Jays fan was ejected from the stadium after refusing to remove or hide his “Canada Is Not For Sale” cap, prompting a congratulatory call from the provincial premier and, subsequently, an apology from the team’s representative.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/never-take-that-hat-off-doug-ford-calls-blue-jays-fan-who-was-removed-for-wearing-canada-is-not-for-sale-hat/

Astyanax

dave Seems like a snowflake move - someone made fun of the owner of this money-making enterprise, so he wants revenge.

That and more. I think some proper perspective is needed before everyone cries “freedom of speech”.

This bozo didn’t just wear a shirt. He made the shirts for many people to wear insulting the owner of MSG and the team! How would you take it if one of your invited guests showed up at your party wearing t-shirts saying Ban (your name) on it after you did something they didn’t like?

px_eliezer_

GrumpyCanadian A Blue Jays fan was ejected from the stadium after refusing to remove or hide his “Canada Is Not For Sale” cap, prompting a congratulatory call from the provincial premier and, subsequently, an apology from the team’s representative.

That’s just bizarre with no limit.

Was stadium security afraid he’d start some sort of patriotic orgy ??

GrumpyCanadian

px_eliezer_ Was stadium security afraid he’d start some sort of patriotic orgy ??

It was a “political statement”, which is not permitted. As for what they feared, I have a preposterous response for you, but that would also constitute a political statement.

Dks01

GrumpyCanadian

GrumpyCanadian px_eliezer_ Was stadium security afraid he’d start some sort of patriotic orgy ??

It was a “political statement”, which is not permitted. As for what they feared, I have a preposterous response for you, but that would also constitute a political statement.

If you want to do a seep dive into event and stadium security, Stadium Lockup on A&E, even in Canada may be interesting. Mostly a chronology of people in Cleveland behaving badly, often after drinking way too much alcohol. However the rationale and process for decisions around such things is made more clear.

px_eliezer_

Astyanax How would you take it if one of your invited guests showed up at your party

Big difference between a “party” and a very, very public event (a concert in this case) at Radio City Music Hall.

BIG!

As well:

MSG company operates Radio City, but they do not own it. The owners are the same company (Tishman) who owns Rockefeller Center. I wonder if MSG’s contract allows them to exclude people who have simply been rude and/or expressed free-speech rights in a totally peaceful way.

As well, Radio City has received major tax breaks from various NY government entities, so they do have some public obligation (not to act like Nazis at any rate).

And, the MSG company has been granted several liquor licenses by the State of New York. Lawsuits against MSG have already been underway in regard to the concept of, if you’ve been granted a liquor license, you have to meet basic standards of public access.

egeezer

Astyanax
The situation in this topic was a person being trespassed because he had a business that made and sold T-shirts over twenty years ago that other people wore.

Since the guy didn’t and never had shown up at the venue wearing or displaying such apparel, your scenario is irrelevant to this topic.

As mentioned previously, trespassing the guy on those pretenses is a snowflake move by butt hurt managers who just wanted to retaliate against him for allowing his business - over twenty years ago - to sell T-shirts with messages they disagreed with.

This is a different set of case facts from Pruneyard v. Robins, where the individuals had actually engaged in activities on the plaintiff’s property.

However, the Pruneyard v. Robins decision does indicate that the guy tresspassed from MSG could prevail in a lawsuit, since his alleged violation was one where he never engaged in activities on or near MSG’s premises at any time.

GrumpyCanadian

Astyanax How would you take it if one of your invited guests showed up at your party wearing t-shirts saying Ban (your name) on it after you did something they didn’t like?

That depends; did I sell them a ticket to the party at my home and make a profit? Were they warned ahead of time that they were not eligible to attend? Did I tell them when they tried to complete the transaction when buying said ticket?

On the other hand, even if a guest did show up wearing a shirt that said something like “<my name> is a bozo!” (since one cannot “ban” me from my home), I would like to think I would have the maturity to discuss the matter with them. I am in no way infallible, and I may well have done something that warrants being called a bozo, and that may be just what I needed to convince me to correct my behaviour in the future.

InternetJeff

px_eliezer_ Big difference between a “party” and a very, very public event (a concert in this case) at Radio City Music Hall.

Indeed, Pruneyard v. Robins may apply.

I’d like to see this tested in court, regardless of which way the ruling goes.

Astyanax

px_eliezer_ Big difference between a “party” and a very, very public event (a concert in this case) at Radio City Music Hall.

BIG!

Change it from a party to your business. The difference your trying to make is irrelevant. Dolan owns or operates both venues and has the right to trespass anyone he wants.

px_eliezer_ As well, Radio City has received major tax breaks from various NY government entities, so they do have some public obligation (not to act like Nazis at any rate).

And, the MSG company has been granted several liquor licenses by the State of New York. Lawsuits against MSG have already been underway in regard to the concept of, if you’ve been granted a liquor license, you have to meet basic standards of public access.

How many more tens of thousands of the public does MSG have to allow into their venues meeting “basic standards of public access” before they can maybe trespass one bozo no matter the reason?

Somewhat-Reticent

egeezer Was he ever informed of this ban? Seemed unaware.

Astyanax

egeezer The situation in this topic was a person being trespassed because he had a business that made and sold T-shirts over twenty years ago that other people wore.

Since the guy didn’t and never had shown up at the venue wearing or displaying such apparel, your scenario is irrelevant to this topic.

Ok so the guy that made the shirts never shows up at my party but still he’d never be welcome at my house that’s for sure so I’d trespass him. Talk about moot points. 🙄

egeezer As mentioned previously, trespassing the guy on those pretenses is a snowflake move by butt hurt managers who just wanted to retaliate against him for allowing his business - over twenty years ago - to sell T-shirts with messages they disagreed with.

…and is there some “pettiness” standard that has to be met? Call it what you want. The owner didn’t like it and that’s that.

egeezer This is a different set of case facts from Pruneyard v. Robins, where the individuals had actually engaged in activities on the plaintiff’s property.

However, the Pruneyard v. Robins decision does indicate that the guy tresspassed from MSG could prevail in a lawsuit, since his alleged violation was one where he never engaged in activities on or near MSG’s premises at any time.

Fine. Let him pay some lawyer thousands of dollars so he can win and see his basketball game, concert, etc. Dolan will probably personally hand him a “golden” Willy Wonka-like ticket laughing his a** off at him while doing it: “Here kid! You definitely paid for this one! Bwahahaha!!!” Then it’s some seat facing a pole. LOL! 😄

egeezer

Somewhat-Reticent Was he ever informed of this ban? Seemed unaware.

That would remain to be seen whether he had been served a trespass order or otherwise notified prior to purchasing tickets.

Bombtrad

With regard to entering ANY venue that posted a sign declaring that your face would be photo recoded. They can go to buggery.

No way I’d go through the turnstiles. What’s the bet that your photo is taken at the time you insert ticket into machine. the sods have your name, address and who knows how much more.

So I’m wearing a T Shirt with ’I LOVE ICE" blazoned across it, with, in 19 point Pica underneath it,“in my Scotch”. So I’ll get thrown out??. I believe the POM’s call it the Nanny State.

Big Brother is indeed watching you!!

broknsymetry

Bombtrad With regard to entering ANY venue that posted a sign declaring that your face would be photo recoded. They can go to buggery.

Yep, FU to FR.

Dks01

broknsymetry if you avoid a venue or place where you are being photographed, you will live a very lonely, isolated life. Video recording in public spaces and private venues is universal now.