Quakes FO vs. 1906 Ultras, Round #?

No, punishing the content of speech in a semi-public forum is illegal under the California Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

 

I think it may be for this banner:


"Only in PDX, running over a female makes you a victim"

It's the Ultras trying to play the victim over the car smashing incident.

 

The fact that you disagree with the sentiment does not make it appropriate for punishment.

 

Maybe the Ultras should take it to court then.

 

Maybe they will.

 

Tifo of the week was deemed innapropriate?

http://www.theendline.com/2013-mls-tifo-of-the-week-week-22

 

LOL ... pretty sure a sports venue at a private university is not a "semi-public forum"!

 

Pruneyard Shopping Center, a private mall in Campbell, is the original precedent from the highest court in the land.

The California Constitution provides broader speech rights than the U.S. Constitution.

 

The fact that the Ultras apparently still can't police themselves is a good enough reason. The sentiment itself isn't necessarily a problem but the attitude certainly is. I bet Kaval talked to Margarit and the two ended up having a pissing contest. I think BOTH need to grow up.

 

You understand that decision is to be narrowly construed, right? The reason being is that a shopping center is normally open for unrestricted public access ... unlike a sports venue at a private university.

 

'cause that is what we need more of.....litigation

 

I'm no lawyer, nor do I claim to be one, but isn't that a "private" mall insofar as it is "privately" owned yet you have free "public" access. Unlike a "privately" owned sport venue in which you have to purchase access to, and therefore are subject to the "rules" required for entrance and the required behaviour to continue to have access at a later time?

 

There are no restrictions on who attends Quakes games, provided you have a ticket.

 

I think the Ultra's kick ass and are a huge asset to the environment during the games and to the team. I also think I would like them to be more focused on the club than themselves...

 

You don't have to purchase access to Quakes games. Hundreds if not thousands of tickets are handed out for free every game. Discovery would reveal how many.

 

It most likely has to do with the message banner that they put up about the car smashing incident. The gemale that is the supposed victim in they eyes of the Ultras is the same female that ran up to the car and allegedly tried to steal the Portland fan's scarf. The same guy that had his windshield smashed in by someone associating themselves with the Ultras. Rumor has it that the perpetrator of the car smashing was not an Ultra. (according to Ultras) However, that can't be confirmed as no name was released.

 

I'd like to see you make that tortured argument in court with a straight face...

 

A guy named @gingefc on Twitter complained to Garber during a Twitter Q & A calling it sexist because they used the word "female" incorrectly for this day and age. I'm still having trouble trying to figure out how. If anybody knows please enlighten me.

Garber responded during that same Q and A and said they had people working on it.

EDIT: Links

https://twitter.com/GingeFC/status/361483552270987265

Garber Response:
https://twitter.com/GingeFC/status/361936100492713984

 

The female should not have tried to steal the scarf, the guy should not have tried to drive off in a panic, the Earthquakes fans (Ultras or otherwise) should not have smashed the guy's hood and windshield, the Ultras should not have made a stupid tifo to bring it up again, and Kaval/Margarit should have acted like adults to work it out without compromising home field advantage. I blame Canada.

 

I don't doubt that many tickets are given away, however the venue operator/owner would still require that you abide by the "rules" to continue to maintain access, and have access at a later date, or am I wrong to believe this?

 

The tortured argument is the one which says the setting is not semi-public because there is ordinarily a, in most cases modest, admission charge. When some ten thousand people gather together and dozens (if not hundreds or thousands), including the coaches and players, regularly shout obscenities and people all over the stadium display placards and banners, the semi-public aspect of the setting seems incontrovertible.

The Quakes encourage banners except when they don't like the content of the speech.

It's a pretty easy case, in my view. A judge could disagree, which is why there is an appeals court, and a California Supreme Court beyond them. Several years from now we might get an answer.

 

Any "rule" to refrain from speech the Quakes don't like would be void as against public policy.

 

Motto of every law firm.