Curtailing free speech — at football games

December 29, 2005

For years, disgruntled football fans have taken some pleasure in mocking their team when it’s losing. Fans have worn paper bags over their heads, held up signs calling for a new coach, and generally shouted rude things at anyone on the field who’d listen.

But in Buffalo, where the Bills are nearly finished with their disappointing 5-and-10 season, there’s a new free-speech debate underway. The methods of protest that fans have been enjoying for years are suddenly off-limits.

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.

Allenbaugh told reporters, “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’?” It’s hardly an unreasonable question.

Apparently, this wasn’t an isolated incident. The Bills organization has a policy that encourages security to confiscate negative signs, T-shirts, and, yes, even paper bags. In a more amusing example, before a game against Atlanta, the Bills barred fans wearing “Ron Mexico” jerseys from even entering the stadium after Michael Vick allegedly used the name as an alias after being sued by a woman who accused him of infecting her with herpes.

In other words, in Buffalo’s Ralph Wilson Stadium, which is a public facility that has enjoyed public financing, fans are finding that they’re checking some of their First Amendment rights at the gate. Signs are acceptable, unless the team finds them “negative.” T-shirts and jerseys are fine, as long as they’re supporting the Bills and/or the league’s public-relations strategy. It’s reminiscent of the Bush White House’s Bubble-Boy policies in which people are welcome at presidential events, as long as they agree to be on-message.

Could this be an untapped market for free-speech litigation?

people still go to bills games?

  • You think this will affect the Bills’ record?

    Hey here’s a thought, how about focusing those energies toward winning some games?

  • I understand that three ticket-holding fans were turned away when a Miami Dolphins bumper sticker was spotted on their car at the stadium in Buffalo. The fans were wearing Bills t-shirts, but it didn’t matter to security.

    Defend the Buffalo Three!

  • Well, the Bills aren’t the government and can only mess up their own image, so I don’t really care if they choose to act like louts toward their fans.

    I’m with AYM–if a team is undeserving of loyalty and contemptuous of the fans, why not just go with another team? Sports is a business, after all, and businesses believe in the free market (or so they say). Go with a better product!

  • I’ve wondered about the First Amendment aspects of this type of bullying for years. Here is a story a friend told me when I was living in Ann Arbor during the anti nuke days:

    A group of protesters hired one of those annoying small planes that buzz around for hours above sports stadiums trailing advertisements and sports slogans. This group wanted their plane to tow a message which read something like, “one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.” Simple enough. The only problem was that the plane was not allowed to take off because the message was deemed offensive.

    I thought the First Amendment was supposed to protect us from such immature insecurity, but, perhaps this leads to the question of whether sports events could survive at the current hyped level if immature insecurity was not protected?

  • I’ve wondered about the First Amendment aspects of this type of bullying for years.

    It depends on who is doing the “bullying.” As a general rule, if the state is preventing the speech, it’s a First Amendment issue; if a private entity is preventing the speech, it’s not a First Amendment issue. In your airplane story, who prevented the plane from taking off? If the state stopped the plane from going up, then there are First Amendment implications. If the plane’s owner refused to carry the message, then there aren’t — though there may be some kind of contract issue.

  • Styer,

    I cannot say for certain who stopped the plane from taking off. It was not the pilot of the plane. The message was hooked up and the pilot ready to go.

    I kinda recall my friend implying that it was a FAA thing, but we all have heard the info on how the mind can distort even eye-witnesses. It was a long, long time ago and I got the info second or third hand.

    • Comments are closed.