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

91–100 of 102 posts

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

#91

Post by longdustytrail »

try_the_bass wrote: post #78
Henchman21 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, he didn’t even buy the ticket? At no point was his name used in the transaction, so how exactly did they know this person was at MSG in the first place? The conjecture is facial recognition.

> Miller says that after he scanned his digital ticket, but before he went through security, a person working at Radio City stopped the line, pulled him aside, and asked him for his ID to verify who he was. Most venues require a name on the ticket, and many will validate that the person holding the ticket is the person who is named on the ticket. This is a very common anti-scalping measure.

This is absolutely not true in my experience (MLB, NFL, NBA). It’s very very common for one person to buy tickets for their whole party (this is how you make sure you’re sitting together) and there’s no part of the purchase or checkin flow where you’re even asked for the names of the people in your party.

Maybe for Taylor swift tickets or something they have stronger rules but it’s definitely not true as a matter of course in American major professional sports that each ticket holder needs to have their identity on file

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

#92

Post by longdustytrail »

zfg wrote: post #85
mulmen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

An interesting precedent for sure but it’s worth noting that a company tried and failed to use this precedent to argue that spam filtering is a violation of the first amendment

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

#93

Post by collingreen »

Henchman21 wrote: post #86
collingreen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

That's fair - plenty of checks and balances are gone, even the ones that relied mostly on decorum and shame. My expectations were already quite low but I've been surprised just how openly and directly the fundamental rights are being attacked and equally surprised by how many people are happily cheering as it happens.

I like the perspective that we are more than mere consumers. I think that's a valid thing to be clear about although consumer protection as a concept doesn't feel belittling to me as a human (nor would I want it to extend to my entire life anyway).

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

#94

Post by try_the_bass »

longdustytrail wrote: post #91
try_the_bass wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Miller says that after he scanned his digital ticket, but before he went through security, a person working at Radio City stopped the line, pulled him aside, and asked him for his ID to verify who he was. Most venues require a name on the ticket, and many will validate that the person holding the ticket is the person who is named on the ticket. This is a very common anti-scalping measure.

This is absolutely not true in my experience (MLB, NFL, NBA). It’s very very common for one person to buy tickets for their whole party (this is how you make sure you’re sitting together) and there’s no part of the purchase or checkin flow where you’re even asked for the names of the people in your party. Maybe for Taylor swift tickets or something they have stronger rules but it’s definitely not true as a matter of…

Ah, my experience is mostly around music or convention tickets, both of which often require verifying identity at the door to prevent scalping. They generally also make transferring tickets a pain, which is sad when someone in your group inevitably changes plans.

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

#95

Post by conover »

Isn’t this the deal we’ve made? You can, legally, deny someone access to private property for any non-protected reason.

On the other hand, if the private property was constructed with public monies, which MSG probably was, that’s an interesting debate. Should the involvement of public money confer first amendment protections of some sort? I think it should.

Edit: You can’t use “my” money to build something and then ban me from it because I said something (non-protected) about the CEO of the company that owns it.

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

#96

Post by lxgr »

somenameforme wrote: post #34
lxgr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself. Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the Fir…

This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1] A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point: --- Th…

This interpretation seems like the exception proving the rule. If it were consistently applied, as you say, social media companies should logically also be required to carry all speech.

The reasonable democratic thing to do here would be to propose new legislation explicitly covering the protection of speech "on private property", pass it if deemed desirable, and just be done with it.

Of course, the problem with that is that such a law might be seen to actually contradict the First Amendment (compelled speech and all), so it would possibly have to be a constitutional amendment, and that's obviously not happening. I really have no idea on how to get out of this mess, yet doing so seems extremely important.

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

#97

Post by somenameforme »

lxgr wrote: post #96
somenameforme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1] A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point: --- Th…

This interpretation seems like the exception proving the rule. If it were consistently applied, as you say, social media companies should logically also be required to carry all speech. The reasonable democratic thing to do here would be to propose new legislation explicitly covering the protection of speech "on private property", pass it if deemed desirable, and just be done with it. Of course, the problem with that…

The point of the ruling is that 'private property' is not, in all cases, strictly defined by private vs public ownership. The more a property is treated in a fashion akin to a public property, the more the rights of the owners become constrained in a fashion similar to the 'normal' owners of public properties - the government. So for instance a similar case was Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck [1] in which somebody was trying to argue that public access TV should be considered a public space, which would lead to some rather interesting TV segments! It made its way the Supreme Court and he was ruled against, but only by a 5-4 split!

That's why I said that such protections will likely end up applying, sooner or later. The precedent for moving stuff from the private to public domain (in terms of protections of users) is quite clear and there's a willingness among the court to act on such, so this applying to things that provide free open access to far more people than any government can reach, and then try to act as their untouchable and unconstrained overlord by appealing to 'private property', is probably inevitable. Of course "inevitable" has no meaning. It could be 5 years from now, or 50.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...

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

#98

Post by _proofs »

try_the_bass wrote: post #78
Henchman21 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, he didn’t even buy the ticket? At no point was his name used in the transaction, so how exactly did they know this person was at MSG in the first place? The conjecture is facial recognition.

> Miller says that after he scanned his digital ticket, but before he went through security, a person working at Radio City stopped the line, pulled him aside, and asked him for his ID to verify who he was. Most venues require a name on the ticket, and many will validate that the person holding the ticket is the person who is named on the ticket. This is a very common anti-scalping measure.

this is just downright false unless a transfer occurred or you are trying to get into a venue's pavilion, and security's being extra detailed.

source: literally seen quite a few hundreds of concerts.

Post reply on HN