Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#81

Post by collingreen »

rdtsc wrote: post #59
zfg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a 1st amendment issue. It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker. If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.

> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery Government does, but other entities don’t. I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here. The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s…

You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power.

Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#82

Post by mulmen »

zfg wrote: post #37
mulmen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is protection by the state. It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent . They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions. The judiciary is a branch of government. You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds.

If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#84

Post by zfg »

DrillShopper wrote: post #56
zfg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions. The judiciary is a branch of government. You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

Please read the first amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.

Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state.

You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments.

Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#85

Post by zfg »

mulmen wrote: post #82
zfg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions. The judiciary is a branch of government. You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds. If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

Nope. Here's a corporation that tried to restrict speech and failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#86

Post by Henchman21 »

collingreen wrote: post #80
Henchman21 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws are no longer enforced in the US.

I'd amend this to Laws against corporations abusing privacy or consumer wellbeing.

That is entirely too narrow. Laws that constrain the government are being ignored. Thats a LOT more than just privacy. Or “consumer wellbeing”, which as a term reviles me — We the People are more than mere consumers — but I take your meaning generally.

Much too narrow. They’re ignoring due process. Just ask anyone not white detained by ICE. (Is that everyone detained by ICE?)

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#87

Post by Valodim »

ben_w wrote: post #70
zonkerdonker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but I don't see how it wouldn't be. But realistically, how worth it would it be for this graphic designer to battle a narcissistic, petty billionaire in court? US civil court is truly fucked. Criminal as well, for that matter. Ok, the entire judicial branch really. And the executive branch, and legislative, law enforcement, public health, education.... As an aside, what's the easiest co…

> As an aside, what's the easiest country in the EU for immigration? The one(s) whose language(s) you already speak, unless you're rich enough for an investor visa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_investor_programs#In... (While Germany may be tempting especially with all the English used in tourist areas, be aware it's not for nothing that native German speakers use in real life a phrase which translates as "…

Actually had to think about what phrase you meant here. For other readers' benefit, it is "Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache", which is indeed a known phrase (with the obvious direct translation)

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#88

Post by Valodim »

Arcuru wrote: post #67

Is there an image of the shirt? I assume that embedded Instagram post is a pic of the shirt, but I don't have Instagram so it's a big blank box with a link to "View this post on Instagram". It's ironic that on this post about a large corporation abusing its power, they are requiring the user to use Instagram to get the full context..

It is a fairly plain shirt with a basketball design that reads "Ban Dolan"

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#89

Post by Valodim »

acomjean wrote: post #30
hello_computer wrote: post #5

If somebody did that to my kid, I wouldn’t be enjoying any shows there, ever. Absolute cattle.

They seem to get away with it. The fact the did it to a lawyer preciously. If they had to pay millions in damages for this nonsense, this would stop. The fact that the “security” team is going through online images to feed into there facial recognition banning software is kind of weird and creepy. I look forward to continuing to not going to MSG and company, as they are far far away from me.

> The fact that the “security” team is going through online images to feed into there facial recognition banning software is kind of weird and creepy.

Why would any team go through anything? I'm sure can just ask AI to maintain a list of offenders, fully automated. So much more efficient.

Re: Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

#90

Post by dkkergoog »

Henchman21 wrote: post #74
t0mas88 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that legal? This would be a clear GDPR violation in Europe. You could probably argue a legitimate interest if you're collecting face recognition data on proven hooligans, but scraping pictures of people that have not been to your venue off a website clearly isn't a legitimate interest for such privacy invasion.

Laws are no longer enforced in the US.

[dead]
Post reply on HN