Terror Trick or Treat
You may have heard about the Tampa Bay Bucaneers season ticket holder who, with the help of the ACLU, won a temporary injunction that stops the patdown searches of fans attending the games at Raymond James Stadium. High school civics teacher Gordon Johnston won his argument that the patdowns were unconstitutional.
When I first heard the news, I thought that the judge made a very bad call, assuming that the team or the NFL was the offending party (and it's my understanding that the NFL has in fact mandated patdowns throughout the leagues as an anti-terrorism measure), but it turns out that the lawsuit wasn't against the team or the NFL--it was against the Tampa Sports Authority. The distinction is important, because the judge's ruling is going to generate a ton of talk with people taking sides without knowing all the facts.
The NFL and the teams are private, for-profit organizations. If they were the parties implementing the patdowns, there's no case. If you don't like it, don't go. At Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, they check bags to make sure you're not bringing in contraband (such as booze, I believe). A friend of mine was hassled there this year when he tried to bring in his baby's diaper bag- true story! At concerts throughout the country, security checks out each patron to make sure hard rock fans aren't bringing in booze or drugs. Is this a violation of someone's rights? I say no. If I'm throwing a for-profit, private bash, and you don't like my rules, as long as I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or race, stay away.
You're going to hear a lot of "yeah, buts" and rhetoric from both extremes in this debate. Personally, I don't have a problem with patdowns like this, whether public or private. I do not for a moment believe that this type of thing MUST inevitably lead to a Big Brother Police State and to those who disagree, I say to you: show me where it's happened in our country one time.
The way to solve this issue is simple. First, turn over all security to the NFL or each team. Get it away from any platform where the AACLU (That's Anti-American Civil Liberties Union, remember) can get involved in any argument.
Let the league or the teams decide whether or not they want to do patdowns. If they do, then they can absorb the cost by raising ticket prices if necessary. Fans will grumble but they'll still cough up and the stands won't be empty.
But what if they don't want to do patdowns?
No problem!
You know how when you pay for parking and the parking receipt has wording that says you're actually buying a limited license to let your vehicle sit in the parking lot, and that parking is at your own risk in case something happens to your car?
Well, in addition to the wording on each ticket that says what you're purchasing is actually a license to sit in a certain location, etc., let's add the wording that says there is "standard" security but by buying the ticket, you release the team from any liability for damage if a terrorist who slips anything through "standard" security causes you to be hurt or killed.
Shouldn't this satisfy the folks who say it's a violation of their rights AND the people who would say if there was some type of terrorist event at a football game and they were injured that the team didn't do enough to protect its customers?
This isn't the final word on this case, which of course is being watched by the Kansas City Chiefs and every other team in the NFL. There could be a trial, the decision could be appealed. and so on. The injunction goes into effect next Sunday, November 6, at Tampa's next home game.
If you're tired of the wars going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives in Washington, keep your eyes on this one, because it can affect you and about 76,000 other folks who like to watch the Chiefs when they play at home.
Listen Here for the audio version of today's George Blog.
You may have heard about the Tampa Bay Bucaneers season ticket holder who, with the help of the ACLU, won a temporary injunction that stops the patdown searches of fans attending the games at Raymond James Stadium. High school civics teacher Gordon Johnston won his argument that the patdowns were unconstitutional.
When I first heard the news, I thought that the judge made a very bad call, assuming that the team or the NFL was the offending party (and it's my understanding that the NFL has in fact mandated patdowns throughout the leagues as an anti-terrorism measure), but it turns out that the lawsuit wasn't against the team or the NFL--it was against the Tampa Sports Authority. The distinction is important, because the judge's ruling is going to generate a ton of talk with people taking sides without knowing all the facts.
The NFL and the teams are private, for-profit organizations. If they were the parties implementing the patdowns, there's no case. If you don't like it, don't go. At Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, they check bags to make sure you're not bringing in contraband (such as booze, I believe). A friend of mine was hassled there this year when he tried to bring in his baby's diaper bag- true story! At concerts throughout the country, security checks out each patron to make sure hard rock fans aren't bringing in booze or drugs. Is this a violation of someone's rights? I say no. If I'm throwing a for-profit, private bash, and you don't like my rules, as long as I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or race, stay away.
You're going to hear a lot of "yeah, buts" and rhetoric from both extremes in this debate. Personally, I don't have a problem with patdowns like this, whether public or private. I do not for a moment believe that this type of thing MUST inevitably lead to a Big Brother Police State and to those who disagree, I say to you: show me where it's happened in our country one time.
The way to solve this issue is simple. First, turn over all security to the NFL or each team. Get it away from any platform where the AACLU (That's Anti-American Civil Liberties Union, remember) can get involved in any argument.
Let the league or the teams decide whether or not they want to do patdowns. If they do, then they can absorb the cost by raising ticket prices if necessary. Fans will grumble but they'll still cough up and the stands won't be empty.
But what if they don't want to do patdowns?
No problem!
You know how when you pay for parking and the parking receipt has wording that says you're actually buying a limited license to let your vehicle sit in the parking lot, and that parking is at your own risk in case something happens to your car?
Well, in addition to the wording on each ticket that says what you're purchasing is actually a license to sit in a certain location, etc., let's add the wording that says there is "standard" security but by buying the ticket, you release the team from any liability for damage if a terrorist who slips anything through "standard" security causes you to be hurt or killed.
Shouldn't this satisfy the folks who say it's a violation of their rights AND the people who would say if there was some type of terrorist event at a football game and they were injured that the team didn't do enough to protect its customers?
This isn't the final word on this case, which of course is being watched by the Kansas City Chiefs and every other team in the NFL. There could be a trial, the decision could be appealed. and so on. The injunction goes into effect next Sunday, November 6, at Tampa's next home game.
If you're tired of the wars going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives in Washington, keep your eyes on this one, because it can affect you and about 76,000 other folks who like to watch the Chiefs when they play at home.
Listen Here for the audio version of today's George Blog.
posted by George Woods | 4:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home