They were complaining, sometimes yelling, and maybe a bit acerbic.
But in a game hosted by a public university, the episode raised a rarely asked question: Is a fan's protest — known in some sports law circles as fan speech or cheering speech — a form of expression protected by the First Amendment?
In other words, do fans have the right to bellow at referees all game long, as long as they do not run on the court or menace the officials? Even if the fan is seated in the front row and the referee can hear every word?
The question is apparently still open to debate, despite more than 150 years of American public sporting events. Legal experts say few precedent-setting court rulings deny, interpret or establish a fan's right to rail at a referee. Hostile or excessively disorderly fan behavior is not tolerated by security officials at games, or for the most part by the court system, because it is deemed dangerous or disruptive to the group. But in the middle of a sporting event as fervent as the N.C.A.A. tournament, with passionate crowds and high stakes, what exactly defines disruptive?
"It isn't yelling or screaming; that is part of the game," said Howard Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University who has been writing about fan behavior and the First Amendment since 2001. "For better or worse, you're allowed to go to a sporting event and express yourself just as you're allowed to go to a political rally and say what you want.
"When you go to a game, the governing body can control drunken behavior. It can control someone standing up and blocking the view of others. It can control signage if it blocks the view of others. But most views expressed, even loud ones, are protected speech. No one has the right to insist that the game be watched in silence."
The debate, like most sports law arguments, is nuanced and complex. Classic public forum free-speech issues, for example, would generally not be applicable at privately owned facilities hosting games, like college basketball games at private universities. Privately owned teams can also contend that a fan's purchase of a ticket is in fact a contract with the team to conform to a code of conduct, which could include a prohibition on excessive yelling at the officials. But many stadiums and arenas constructed with some public financing, or built on state land or land operated by a municipal authority, could be viewed as public entities. In that setting, a government cannot force citizens to surrender constitutional rights like free speech.
There is some leeway, but where is the line drawn, and on which side does a fan yelling at a referee stand?
"It is an interesting question, and we don't have an exemplary test case that settles every aspect," said Scott Rosner, a sports business and law professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "But traditionally, courts have come down on the side that free speech at a sporting event has limits. It is a right that is revocable — maybe because the few fans that come before courts have really overdone it."
Rosner, however, conceded that there could be cases that proved the opposite. He used as a hypothetical example a fan sitting at a Penn State football game and reading loudly from the grand jury report of the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse case.
"Everything about the setting is public," Rosner said. "The fan is not doing anything wrong because he's reading a public document, and yet it would likely agitate a lot of people in the crowd and conceivably lead security to remove the fan. And afterward, members of the A.C.L.U. would be lining up to represent that fan."
In fact, one fan, Robin Ficker, a Maryland lawyer, gained notice in the 1990s for similar demonstrations.
Ficker was a fixture at Washington Bullets games, where he sat behind the opposing team's bench and shouted at players, sometimes through a megaphone. He was careful about his language. He was not asked to leave. On at least one occasion, standing within feet of Michael Jordan, he read aloud unflattering passages from "The Jordan Rules," a controversial book on the Chicago Bull's first championship season.
When the Bullets moved to a new arena, the team relocated Ficker, a season-ticket holder, behind the basket, and he declined to attend.
John W. Adams, the N.C.A.A. national coordinator of men's basketball officiating, said referees listen for taboo words from overzealous fans, comments that are racially or sexually oriented, obscene or threatening to anyone. In most cases, officials are instructed to deliver a warning, then to approach an N.C.A.A. staff member who is charged with handling the situation. But most other fan behavior is not an issue.
"We have no book to go to at halftime that says, 'This guy in the third row is standing and yelling for too long,' " Adams said. "We understand there's going to be booing."
Asked about a situation in which a fan in the front row ceaselessly but not vulgarly yelled at a referee, Adams answered: "We would want our official to ignore that fan. If the guy has the energy to do it for 40 minutes, so be it."
Alan Goldberger, a lawyer from New Jersey and a former official who represents officiating organizations, said referees know when a fan has stepped over the line from rooting to interfering with their ability to administer the game.
"It's no different than shouting and cheering at a Broadway musical," Goldberger said. "You can do it, but if you stand up and do it in the middle of a song, you are disrupting the performance. Your free speech doesn't extend that far. It only goes so far."
But the legal precedents for those interpretations are hard to come by, perhaps for two contrasting reasons, lawyers said. Fans who might have good cases for seemingly unjust ejections are rarely arrested; they are only removed from the event. They may be upset afterward but not aggrieved enough to follow through with a lengthy lawsuit. The other reason is that when a fan does file a civil suit over an ejection, it is almost always settled before a trial because team owners and arena owners fear a landmark case establishing fans' rights.
"Imagine if a higher court took on such a case?" said Mark Conrad, an associate professor of sports law at Fordham University's School of Business. "Facility owners would be quaking over anything like that because it could open the floodgates."
Policies regarding fan behavior at stadiums and arenas around the country are written with multiple situations in mind: indecent chants by student groups, singling out opposing players and, not insignificantly, intoxicated fans.
"We put a lot of time into creating a code of conduct for fans with the input of several constituencies on campus," said Mike Dowling, U.C.L.A.'s assistant athletic director in charge of operations. "But it is something you constantly wrestle with. You want a fun, exciting atmosphere, but you also want it safe and to exhibit good sportsmanship. Still, you know you're going to deal with people who have a passion for what they're watching or they wouldn't be yelling or screaming."
Corchiani, whose wife and 11-year-old daughter accompanied him to North Carolina State's Feb. 18 game, said he still had trouble believing he was ejected.
"Yes, we questioned the ref's calls, and we questioned the integrity of some of those calls," Corchiani said. "We got under his skin. But if that warrants an ejection, then there wouldn't be any fans allowed in any arenas.
"When I'm getting Twitter messages from Tar Heel fans and Duke fans telling us we did nothing wrong, I know something weird happened."
0 意見:
Post a Comment