AP: Bills accused of stifiling fans' frustrations

[pats1]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/rs...bills.unhappyfan.ap/index.html?section=si_nfl

Bills accused of stifling fans
Posted: Wednesday December 28, 2005 2:43PM; Updated: Wednesday December 28, 2005 2:43PM

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- Among the many disgruntled Buffalo Bills season-ticket holders, Mike Allenbaugh looked forward to having the chance to voice his frustrations at the team's final home game by holding up a sign of protest.

After checking the team's stadium policy, Allenbaugh came up with a sign that read: "firE coacheS dumP maNagement" -- the capital letters aligned to spell out ESPN, the national cable-TV network which broadcast the Dec. 17 game in which Denver defeated Buffalo 28-17.

Allenbaugh, however, never had a chance to hold up his sign. Ralph Wilson Stadium security officials confiscated it shortly before kickoff after first threatening to have him ejected.

"It's just ridiculous," Allenbaugh said this week. "I can go in there and say, 'Go Bills.' I can go in there and say, 'Go Patriots.' Why can't I say, 'I don't like you as a manager.' That makes no sense to me whatsoever."

Allenbaugh, a 23-year-old Air Force veteran, wasn't alone. He was one of several fans who had their letters published in The Buffalo News last weekend, accusing the Bills of stifling free speech after witnessing security officials confiscate negative signs, T-shirts, and even the paper bags some fans wore over their heads.

"Just because the management and coaching is awful, where do they get off violating our First Amendment right to freedom of speech?" Allenbaugh wrote. "From now on, if you go to a sporting event, sit in your seat and don't make a noise until the front office says you can."

The Bills did not return several messages left by The Associated Press.

The team's stadium policy posted on its Web site reads in part: "Banners and signs are permitted generally, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs the view for other guests will be removed. Flags or banners that are commercial or offensive in nature or attached to poles are prohibited."

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Post Kelly, the Bills had a core of good players and a strong D. They signed Flutie and then made a major mistake that has destroyed the franchise. Unproven QB Rob Johnson, The Fragile One, was signed for draft picks and relatively big bucks. Owner Ralph Wilson insisted on playing his big $ QB, Rob "The Next Steve Young" Johnson. Well, the "Tackeling Dummy" would get sacked time and again and would get injured and out of the game. Flutie would start and the Bills win. Johnson comes back, starts and the Bills lose. He had a horrendous Loss vs Win #. Benching Flutie for RJ once he brought them to the playoffs was the pinnacle of post Kelly success.

Fast forward to today and the Bills cast off Bledsoe for (again) the unproven JP Lossman. Another loser and fragile QB. Backup Holcomb (no star) wins. Lossman loses every start but one.

 

[Pujo]

Sucks what the Bills are doing, but they're a private organization so what the hell does the first amendment have to do with it? The first amendment applies to government restrictions on speech, not private companies.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Sucks what the Bills are doing, but they're a private organization so what the hell does the first amendment have to do with it? The first amendment applies to government restrictions on speech, not private companies.

Well said. Amazing how many folks scream free speech in the totally wrong context, never having read and thought about the First Ammendment. That being said it's wicked pissah that Bills fans are doing stuff like wearing bags over their heads, etc.

 

[godef]

I remember back in '95 at a game where a fan perhaps 5 rows ahead of me was wearing a paper bag over his head (after first appearance in Parcell's era in '94, the pats went 6-10 in '95). A seagull came flying by and nailed this guy right on the head.

 

[Na_polian]

Sucks what the Bills are doing, but they're a private organization so what the hell does the first amendment have to do with it? The first amendment applies to government restrictions on speech, not private companies.

Unless, of course, the "private organization" is operating in, for example, a taxpayer-subsidized stadium. I'm sure the commies at the ACLU would take that and run with it

 

[Pujo]

Unless, of course, the "private organization" is operating in, for example, a taxpayer-subsidized stadium. I'm sure the commies at the ACLU would take that and run with it

There might actually be some merit to that. Truth is, the whole idea of the government subsidizing things that should be left to private entities throws a monkeywrench into constitutional law. Why shouldn't the taxpayers who had to finance the stadium to some degree expect the freedom to express themselves as long as it doesn't disrupt the event? Anyway, this is a bigger issue than I expect we can solve on a football forum, but it certainly doesn't take a commie to see the problem.

 

[Na_polian]

There might actually be some merit to that. Truth is, the whole idea of the government subsidizing things that should be left to private entities throws a monkeywrench into constitutional law. Why shouldn't the taxpayers who had to finance the stadium to some degree expect the freedom to express themselves as long as it doesn't disrupt the event? Anyway, this is a bigger issue than I expect we can solve on a football forum, but it certainly doesn't take a commie to see the problem.

I was just kidding wrt the "commie" comment

But yeah, I agree with your post.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Boooo

Loved the photo of the Bills fans with the brown paper bags over their heads. On the bags was written "Ills".

I don't feel sorry for them one bit though. They DOMINATED the AFC for years. Remember the 10,000 Bills fans that used to come down to Foxboro. Couldn't stand it.

They are doomed to many more years of losing for the travesty of benching Flutie during that playoff game. Flutie would have won that game. Only time I rooted for the Bills.

 

[njpatsfan]

Unless, of course, the "private organization" is operating in, for example, a taxpayer-subsidized stadium. I'm sure the commies at the ACLU would take that and run with it

And lose immediately because of the clever fine print on the back of the ticket. Read it sometime - it's amazing what it's in there.

Oh, and you forgot the "NAMBLA-loving, terrorist protecting, Constitution-trashing, mass murder apologizing" communist ACLU. And the ACLU only bullies people without deep pockets.

R

 

[Pujo]

And lose immediately because of the clever fine print on the back of the ticket. Read it sometime - it's amazing what it's in there.

Oh, and you forgot the "NAMBLA-loving, terrorist protecting, Constitution-trashing, mass murder apologizing" communist ACLU. And the ACLU only bullies people without deep pockets.

R

All the fine print on the ticket would be worthless if they found that the stadium, on account of being taxpayer subsidized, is a semi-public venue and that constitutional protections apply. You can't override the constitution with a contract (which is what 'fine print' is). I won't go into your tirade against the ACLU because it just shows you're misinformed. I could dig up at least a dozen ACLU-related court battles that you would side with them on if you didn't know the ACLU was involved.

 

[dryheat44]

They should take a page from Lions fans. If everybody showed up wearing "Donahoe Sucks" hats, or start a "fire Donahoe" chant from kickoff to kneeldown, it would be a great thing.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Detroit fans are going through the same exact thing. Doesn't seem quite right that you pay all of that money for your seats and can't voice your displeasure with management's ineptitude.

 

[njpatsfan]

All the fine print on the ticket would be worthless if they found that the stadium, on account of being taxpayer subsidized, is a semi-public venue and that constitutional protections apply. You can't override the constitution with a contract (which is what 'fine print' is). I won't go into your tirade against the ACLU because it just shows you're misinformed. I could dig up at least a dozen ACLU-related court battles that you would side with them on if you didn't know the ACLU was involved.

I'll ignore your ad hominem attack, always the first and last resort of the modern liberal thought. You decry ignorance, but then display it boldly.

As Pujo and PWP so accurately pointed out, but aparently didn't permeate your consciousness, the First Amendment concerns the GOVERNMENT restricting speech/assembly. And even in this context, the first amendment is not absolute: as any schoolchild should know, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Interestingly, liberals definition of free speech usually means - "speech I agree with is OK anywhere, anytime - speech I don't agree with is 'hate speech' and is not worthy of protection. This is how we end up with WTO rioters left off the hook for overtuening cars and burning stores, but havinf special laws just for churchgoing grandmas banned from coming within 2000' of an abortion clinic. Do as I say, not as I do.

Despite any ACLU canard, in the law (or in the Constitution, for that matter), there is no such thing as a "semi-public venue". There is only public and private property. Just because the government may subsidize certain private activities doesn't make it a "government enterprise". Using your logic, your house would be a "semi-public venue" because you get a tax deduction (government subsidy) on your mortgage interest.

Your second gem, "you can't override the constitution with a contract" is even more lucridious. It happens thousands of times a day, when parties settle out of court. You relinqish your right to "seek redress" in court in order to score a payday. Criminal defendents sign away their right to a jury trial in plea deals. You sign away your right "seek redress" in court on your insurance policy in order to get a lower premium.

Despite your fervent deluded desire for the ACLU to come in on their white horse an rescue the poor repressed Bills fans, there's no leg to stand on. Nor would they want to. They have much grander goals, such as protecting proven terrorists, conducting bigoted attacks on religion, destroying the instition of marriage, and undercutting in general the underpinnings of all that makes America the great nation that it is.

As for the ACLU's despicable goals and actions, I would ask the mods to move this thread to the political forum, where I can give your misconceptions a more thorough b-slapping.

For now, I'll just leave you with words of Roger Baldwin, the co-founder of the ACLU:

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.â€

An education is an amazing thing.

R

 

[Pujo]

I'll ignore your ad hominem attack, always the first and last resort of the modern liberal thought. You decry ignorance, but then display it boldly.

As Pujo and PWP so accurately pointed out, but aparently didn't permeate your consciousness, the First Amendment concerns the GOVERNMENT restricting speech/assembly. And even in this context, the first amendment is not absolute: as any schoolchild should know, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Interestingly, liberals definition of free speech usually means - "speech I agree with is OK anywhere, anytime - speech I don't agree with is 'hate speech' and is not worthy of protection. This is how we end up with WTO rioters left off the hook for overtuening cars and burning stores, but havinf special laws just for churchgoing grandmas banned from coming within 2000' of an abortion clinic. Do as I say, not as I do.

Despite any ACLU canard, in the law (or in the Constitution, for that matter), there is no such thing as a "semi-public venue". There is only public and private property. Just because the government may subsidize certain private activities doesn't make it a "government enterprise". Using your logic, your house would be a "semi-public venue" because you get a tax deduction (government subsidy) on your mortgage interest.

Your second gem, "you can't override the constitution with a contract" is even more lucridious. It happens thousands of times a day, when parties settle out of court. You relinqish your right to "seek redress" in court in order to score a payday. Criminal defendents sign away their right to a jury trial in plea deals. You sign away your right "seek redress" in court on your insurance policy in order to get a lower premium.

Despite your fervent deluded desire for the ACLU to come in on their white horse an rescue the poor repressed Bills fans, there's no leg to stand on. Nor would they want to. They have much grander goals, such as protecting proven terrorists, conducting bigoted attacks on religion, destroying the instition of marriage, and undercutting in general the underpinnings of all that makes America the great nation that it is.

As for the ACLU's despicable goals and actions, I would ask the mods to move this thread to the political forum, where I can give your misconceptions a more thorough b-slapping.

For now, I'll just leave you with words of Roger Baldwin, the co-founder of the ACLU:

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.â€

An education is an amazing thing.

R

And I'm sure people like you would love to go back to the old days before the ACLU. No interracial marriage, no contraception use, no teaching evolution, segregation. Let's face it, your rant is biggoted and only geared to spitting out some talking points. Bill O'Reilly would be very proud.

 

[dryheat44]

You know, we have a political forum for this kind of back and forth discussion. Please take it there.

 

[Joker]

uh...if you're gonna use "ad hominem", "permeate your consciousness", "decry" and other words and terms that boldly illustrate your elitist mentality, then perhaps you would consider learning to spell most of these words before you start pounding the key

It's not "aparently"..it's apparently

"lucridious"??...I'll take a stab and say you meant ludicrous...I am quite sure there is no such word in the English language as "lucridious"...maybe it's the "idio"that made you spell it that way since it suggests "idiot"

"relinqish"....it's begging for a U to make it a real word...if I were you, I'd relinquish your implication that you passed third grade

"defendents"...well, you can't be a lawyer...if you are you should be a defendant in a fraud trial

"An education is an amazing thing."....wow...irony thy name is NJ Pats fan

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Many folks, especially speed readers, have an extensive vocabulary but cannot spell. And typos reign on the net.

 

[Pujo]

You know, we have a political forum for this kind of back and forth discussion. Please take it there.

You're right, I apologize to everyone for the off-topic posting. I am done with this thread.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Many folks, especially speed readers, have an extensive vocabulary but cannot spell. And typos reign on the net.

I kan atest too that. On top ov beeing a spped reader, I'm aslo a crtified jenious, and i kant tpye or spell too sav my lighfe.