9 ms·
Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mcphage 2y ago[flagged]
- zfg 2y ago[flagged]
- hello_computer 2y agoIf people these days were human—rather than erect animals—they’d boycott companies like this into bankruptcy. The eternal consoomer just lies down and takes it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mingus88 2y agoThis is not a 1st amendment issue. This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life. Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp. We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk dystopia and none of the flying cars or bio-enhancements.
- zfg 2y ago> 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.
- mingus88 2y agoThe 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside. Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger. That’s late stage capitalism.
- MindBeams 2y agoIt is a capitalism issue. But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
- thayne 2y agoIt can be both. The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.
- mulmen 2y ago> The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The entire First Amendment is one sentence: > 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. Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.
- hunter2_ 2y ago[flagged]
- lxgr 2y agoThat’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 First Amendment is/does.
- ysofunny 2y agoit's a 1st ammendment issue in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart because citizen-president Trump is a power bully but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land
- cosmotic 2y agoFirst amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue
- zfg 2y agoIt is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does. If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.
- mulmen 2y ago> 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.
- zfg 2y agoAnd 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.
- harimau777 2y agoWhile that may be technically correct I don't think it's actually correct. Just because it doesn't violate the 1st amendment doesn't mean it doesn't violate free speech. Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is also a type of society. Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.
- pjc50 2y ago> Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions. Well, yes, but I'd say the more important part is that students are having their visas revoked and being pulled off the street into immigration detention because of social media posts.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Jiro 2y agoI seem to recall that when conservatives were getting banned from social media (or any place else), the prevailing attitude was "it's a private company, and they don't owe you anything, so they can ban someone for any reason they want." Now when it's a sympathetic target suddenly nobody is saying that? People are even invoking the First Amendment, which was laughed at back then.
- harimau777 2y agoThe difference is that conservatives generally get banned for being disrespectful and hateful. E.g. conservatives generally don't get banned for saying that they disagree with gay marriage, they get banned for using slurs, insulting people, etc.
- thrance 1y agoThe difference is conservatives voices were always the ones getting the most exposure online. Their whining back then was purely political and completely unfounded. And now that they're in power and actively censoring people, it should be apparent to all how this constant appeal to free speech and the 1st amendment was deeply hypocritical.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hello_computer 2y agoIf somebody did that to my kid, I wouldn’t be enjoying any shows there, ever. Absolute cattle.
- acomjean 2y agoThey 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.
- Valodim 1y ago> 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.
- ranger_danger 2y agoBig fat warning that there is absolutely no proof of why they were banned, the title is very misleading.
- arielsaldana 2y agoDid you read the article? It clearly states what Mikyl Cordova wrote lol.
- ranger_danger 2y ago[flagged]
- sadeshmukh 2y agoThat's got to be the most tenuous argument I've ever seen - the most merchandisey item is a T-shirt.
- ranger_danger 2y agoMaybe I should have been a lawyer.
- slater 2y agohttps://shop.fwmj.com/product/dan-boland-tshirt https://shop.fwmj.com/product/dan-boland-tshirt
- djmips 2y agoBTW did you read where that was a later edit?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mcphage 2y agoSo you’re thinking it’s even more petty than what the article said? Woah.
- hettygreen 2y agoI'm sure this is just an isolated incident and we won't see anything like this happening in the future.
- comrh 2y agoIt's not surprising as James Dolan is a pretty notorious asshole.
- beng-nl 2y agoFor anyone who might enjoy a compilation of some radio hosts making fun of some stunts he has pulled: https://youtu.be/QMvWHg7heAU?si=E0QP0Onxtz3apW_d https://youtu.be/QMvWHg7heAU?si=E0QP0Onxtz3apW_d
- userbinator 2y agoHis behavior was disrespectful and disruptive and in violation of our code of conduct. Certainly not the first time a vague and imposing "code of conduct" has caused trouble.
- neilv 2y ago> “Frank Miller Jr. made threats against an MSG executive on social media and produced and sold merchandise that was offensive in nature,” Mikyl Cordova, executive vice president of communications and marketing for the company, said in an emailed statement. If he made threats, what were the threats? If he didn't make threats, does this written statement, from a communications executive, to a journalist, intended for news publication, constitute libel?
- zonkerdonker 2y agoI'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 country in the EU for immigration?
- pjc50 2y ago> easiest country in the EU for immigration? Since the Mediterranean crisis and the Ukraine crisis: none. Although Ireland won't impose a language requirement so you might start there.
- t0mas88 1y agoNetherlands if you qualify as a knowledge worker, which is super easy for anyone with a university degree. This could change since the new government isn't very enthusiastic about it, but for now it's a straight "Welcome and here is a 30% tax break for your first 5 years" as long as you meet a quite low minimum income number. And even lower if you come in on a student visum first, they recognise that a starter job is lower paid.
- sieabahlpark 1y ago[dead]
- ben_w 1y ago> 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_operation 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 "The German language is difficult"). Most of the EU, but not Denmark or Ireland, also theoretically have the Blue Card scheme; but I say "theoretically" because that's a bureaucratic streamlining, the actual granting is still done at national level and from what I've heard different countries grant them at different rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Card_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Card_(European_Union)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tstrimple 2y agoWay too much circle jerking in this thread over what the first amendment means as if people a few hundred years ago had a better grasp on what is right and wrong in today’s context than anyone living and breathing and thinking today. In my opinion the deference given to what long dead people wrote is a cause of many of this country’s problems. It’s supposed to be a living constitution and we’re still trying to divine what those dead people meant by their more obscure statements with a radically different context than what we have face today.
- hallway_monitor 2y agoI don’t give a shit about first amendment interpretations and I agree completely that laws need an update. How about this: ban biometric detection. Ban facial recognition. Throw the CEO in jail if a company breaks the ban. That would be a good use of government power. Fuck the surveillance state, it’s not a place I want to live - and we don’t have to accept it.
- hello_computer 2y agoi’d go a step further https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY
- blacksmith_tb 1y agoYou can move to Portland![1] (also, our cherry trees are blooming, very pretty) 1: https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/portland-passes-the-toughest-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-the-us/ https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/portland-passes-the-tough...
- gorgoiler 2y agoIf they pulled Miller out of the line and only then checked his photo ID, and the allegation is they used facial recognition to trigger this, then that implies they already had his biometrics in their database. The legal disclaimer shown at the venue implies that the biometrics are collected (and “retained, stored, and converted”) at the venue. That’s clearly only half of the story. They must also be collecting (and retaining, storing, and converting) information about anyone using sources outside the venue. The implication from chronology of the story is that MSG must have done something like googled Miller, found his LinkedIn bio-pic, and put that in their “safety and security” database? I think we can conclude therefore that the disclaimer sign is not a quasi-legal disclaimer to let the venue record your face, but in fact a canard to divert your attention from the fact that they have already created records linking your face to your name — records created without your consent and without letting you know they did it.
- conradfr 2y agoThey scrap adversarial law firms websites for photos of employees to ban them so yeah.
- t0mas88 1y agoIs 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.
- rahimnathwani 1y agoIf a 3-person law firm is suing you, and the law firm has a web site with photos of its 3 lawyers, it seems reasonable to add those photos to a pinboard at your entrance, so security staff know to look our for those folks, and not to allow them to come into your place of business (unless they arrive for an appointment, e.g. for a deposition). What if the law firm has thousands of employees and you don't know exactly which ones might be working on your case at any given time? What if your entrance has a high volume of visitors and it's not practical for your security team to stop each of those people for minutes, whilst they check them against a set of thousands of photos?
- ungreased0675 2y agoIt feels like this should be illegal.
- K0balt 2y agoiTT: as new group of people banned from MSG properties lol.
- Arcuru 1y agoIs 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..
- Valodim 1y agoIt is a fairly plain shirt with a basketball design that reads "Ban Dolan"
- try_the_bass 1y agoI don't understand why there's so much focus on facial recognition on this article? The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out. I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
- Henchman21 1y agoIIRC, 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.
- try_the_bass 1y ago> 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.
- longdustytrail 1y agoThis 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
- try_the_bass 1y agoAh, 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.
- conover 1y agoIsn’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.
- HackerThemAll 1y agoAmerican Dream (TM). Freedom of speech at its best.
- cyberge99 1y agoCongress should pass bipartisan legislation that people in this situation, albeit rare, get a full refund at a minimum, or at least be able to predetermine if they’re banned.