Any lawyers or lay legal experts want to answer a question for me?

[white_wolf]

So at the Vanderbilt UT game today, some friends of mine(I planned on going but my car broke down yesterday and is still parked in the garage there, so I had to miss it)) held up a banner saying "Big Orange, small wages" in criticism of and to raise awareness of the fact that UT does not pay its workers a living wage while at the same time spending 85,000 dollars on their new marketing campaign "Big Orange Big Ideas." Anyway, they got kicked out and I'm just wondering if there is possibly a 1st amendment issue since it is a State school? As, I said I'm no expert and I'm pretty sure there's a loophole I don't know about, but I thought I'd ask.

[midnight]

1. K&R Hopefully for some legal help or suggestions...

[white_wolf]

3. If nothing else I'll bug my Con law professor on Monday.

Hell, he and some other students sued UT in 69 over them not letting an anti-Vietnam war speaker on campus (Dick Gregory, I think was his name) they actually won that case.

[elleng]

5. You think his name was DICK GREGORY?!

[white_wolf]

7. It was. I'm about 99% sure.

My professor only mentioned this incident once in class, so I couldn't' remember who he said he invited and when I'm not sure I prefer to err on the side of caution and preface things with a disclaimer such as "I think." I know who Dick Gregory is, if that's what you're asking, I'm just not 100% sure he was the one invited.

[elleng]

8. Don't see anything about it, but its certainly possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gregory

[white_wolf]

9. Yeah it was him. Here is the case if you are interested:

Smith V University of Tennessee. [link:http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=19691077300FSupp777_1923.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7|

[elleng]

11. Good find,

and as DefenseLawyer has said, its State action, confirmed by facts set out in '69: 'The University of Tennessee is a state owned and operated institution of higher learning.'

[RKP5637]

2. K&R'ed for more visibility.

[elleng]

4. Could be.

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.
If the banner was not a safety hazard etc.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. There was a similar story last year

about a guy that bought a ticket from a scalper for the UNC Virginia basketball game at UVA. He wore a Tar Heels shirt and they kicked him out of the seat he had paid for because it was in the "booster section" or some such nonsense. I'm not sure what happened with it or if there was litigation. I'm not a civil rights lawyer but in both cases it's definitely state action and, particularly in your case, if they allow signs at all, I think removing some signs because of their content would be a pretty clear first amendment violation.

[steve2470]

10. I'm no lawyer but here's my take:

The only way I can see the school could legitimately kick them out is:

1- they are obstructing other fans' views

or:

2- the school could argue their presence is a security problem due to other fan's *possibly* being hostile and *possibly* causing a riot.

Otherwise, the school should get sued for violation of 1st Amendment rights.

[elleng]

12. And #2 is no good,

as 'other fans possibly causing a riot' does NOT justify denying First Amendment rights.

[steve2470]

13. oh yes that's right, I had forgotten that nt

[white_wolf]

14. Isn't it possible the school might have some defense under...

the clear and present danger test, though I don't think many judges would accept that argument as I highly doubt there was any clear danger of the law being broken.

[elleng]

16. No.

The clear and present danger test was established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,[1] concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

[steve2470]

15. Feiner v. New York (1951)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v._New_York

ok my bad, wrong case.

(Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969] maybe ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[white_wolf]

17. "rise up in arms and fight for their rights"

There was no call for violence in this case though. The banner simply read "Big Orange, Small Wages." I think it would be very hard to argue that there was a chance of a riot.

[steve2470]

18. maybe Brandenburg in my post (edited) protects them ? nt

[elleng]

27. IF it should be necessary,

but such objection would be a real stretch for UT here, imo.

Brandenburg 'held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.'

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Its called the Hecklers Veto and is often used as an excuse

not to allow demonstrations or political statements

[sendero]

22. If it was said to be obstructing..

... then any other banners of similar size and placement would have to be treated the same way.

[TeamsterDem]

19. I'm pretty sure Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District controls here

Check that case out for starters

[SpartanDem]

20. What's the policy on banners?

for MSU the Breslin Center website says that no banners or posters are permitted inside the arena. I know students have been kicked out for trying protest in the arena and there have been no lawsuits.

[Jim Lane]

21. Possibly permissible as "time, place, or manner" restriction

I agree with other posters that this is state action, and I can't see a plausible argument for the University under "clear and present danger" or similar tests.

The University might, however, be validly exercising its power to regulate the time, place, or manner of speech. Such regulations are permitted if they are reasonable and content-neutral. For example, SpartanDem in #20 refers to MSU's general policy against banners or posters in its arena. If UT has such a policy and enforces it impartially, it might well be constitutional. If anti-union banners are tolerated while one criticizing the University was prohibited, that's a First Amendment violation.

An in-between area, more difficult to assess, is a subject-matter restriction. A policy of "no banners except those related to the game" (with pro- and anti-union banners both being thrown out) would be a different question.

One factor would be the availability of reasonable alternative means for speech. If people can hold up banners like this outside the arena, where everyone entering to watch the game can see them, that makes it more likely that the prohibition on banners inside would be upheld.

Caveat: I am a lawyer but I haven't done First Amendment work in many years.

[libtodeath]

23. I imagine

there is some control allowed over the content of the speech in its setting.
In other words a large banner saying FUCK YOU probably would not have been allowed to stay in public view.
All public institutions have rules of conduct,you are not allowed to drink in most public places nor cause what those in control of the given place consider a disruption.

[taterguy]

25. All game signs must contain the initials of the broadcasting network

For chrissakes, haven't you ever read the NCAA Rule Book?

[Honeycombe8]

26. I'm no legal expert, but am wondering if the game took place on private property.

Not sure what "UT" means. Utah? University of TN? Uber Terrible?

Not sure where the game is....at state school grounds of University of Tennessee?

Anyway, if the game is on private property, they have total control of behavior on their property. Just like you would in your house.

Even if the building was built using partial govt funds, they probably still have control over behavior there. Just like a public school has the right to institute policies and procedures conducive to the function of the school. A group of kids can't parade up and down school halls protesting; it's disruptive to the purpose of the school. So I'd think that protesting AT a ball game would be against policies because it would be disruptive to the purpose of the game and interfere with others' rights to peacefully watch the game, which is why everyone is there in the first place.

It's common sense, really. Protestors have to stick to public grounds outside of functions, buildings, schools, etc.

I'm sure they wouldn't want to interfere with others peacefully enjoying the game, right? I know I wouldn't.

Generally speaking, the rule as I've heard it is: Your First Amendment rights end where another's rights begin. You paid for a ticket to see a game. You have a right to peacefully enjoy the game without disruption. Signs and loudness pertaining to the game itself is considered a part of the game experience.