PDA

View Full Version : Signs banned at UVa games



HaveFunExpectToWin
08-21-2008, 10:26 AM
Looks like all signs are banned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082001297.html?hpid=sec-education) at UVa home sporting events starting this year. Is it just me or is there an anti-hooligan trend slowly forming in athletics? (KC Chiefs code of conduct, MLS joining Say No to Racism campaign, UVa banning signs, etc)

I wonder if the peak was MD's shouting at JJ Redick on ESPN?

GADevilFan
08-21-2008, 10:33 AM
LAME. Evidently the First Amendement no longer applies if someones feelings might get hurt....

RainingThrees
08-21-2008, 11:07 AM
Seriously dude people are becoming so soft. If someone states an opinion it will always offend someone. I can understand signs that have profanity but not all signs.

CameronBornAndBred
08-21-2008, 11:18 AM
I hope that includes the obnoxious pinwheels behind the basket. It's a good distraction I guess, and in the spirit of sportsmanship, but ask the guy sitting behind one how he likes it. Especially for an important free throw. I bet he never sees anything but the back of one of those things.

GrayHare
08-21-2008, 12:03 PM
Looks like all signs are banned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082001297.html?hpid=sec-education) at UVa home sporting events starting this year.

Nonsense! Viriginia Sports Properties (http://www.virginiasports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=17800&KEY=&ATCLID=1151502) is happy to help you with your on-premise branding needs at any UVa venue.

hurleyfor3
08-22-2008, 12:24 PM
Signs have been verboten in Cameron for years, at least in the student section. Yes, people smuggled them in anyway.

Edouble
08-22-2008, 02:08 PM
LAME. Evidently the First Amendement no longer applies if someones feelings might get hurt....

My uncle, an attorney in constitutional law and a UVA alum, had this to say when I asked him about how the ban relates to the First Ammendment:

"Interesting because the school's former policy - which disallowed signs deemed to be "offensive," etc. - was actually more problematic from a 1st Amendment perspective. Restrictions on speech, if allowed at all, must be "content-neutral" - i.e., you can't ban some opinions but not others. A total ban as is now in place here is less of a problem."

I thought that was interesting.

gotham devil
09-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Do you miss Beijing? Are you pining for some good ol' fashioned totalitarianism? Enjoy seeing any small voice squashed like a ladybug under a Hummer?
Then come to the University of Virginia!
At Virginia a new rule bans signs of any kind at all sporting events, including football and basketball.

From this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3566872&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1

OZZIE4DUKE
09-04-2008, 06:54 AM
Signs have been verboten in Cameron for years, at least in the student section. Yes, people smuggled them in anyway.

Really? I had no problem getting my "J-J-J" sign in upstairs a few years ago. And when I gave Ed "Viking Hat Guy" Venit "Version 1.0" he had that, and several more signs, right under the basket.

And let's not forget Bethany's "Shane Takes Charge" sign she proudly displayed game after game for Shane Battier.

hurleyfor3
09-04-2008, 11:02 AM
Really? I had no problem getting my "J-J-J" sign in upstairs a few years ago. And when I gave Ed "Viking Hat Guy" Venit "Version 1.0" he had that, and several more signs, right under the basket.

And let's not forget Bethany's "Shane Takes Charge" sign she proudly displayed game after game for Shane Battier.

As I wrote, this was downstairs and people (including me, early 1990s) managed to bring them in anyway. We had to be somewhat furtive about it, though. We definitely were spot-checked for signs as we entered the building. I recall once one student near me in line tried to bring in a personalized license plate to show on teevee and wasn't allowed to, because it was considered a sign.

MulletMan
09-04-2008, 11:15 AM
The only sign that I've seen removed from Cameron in the last 8 years that was brought in by a Duke fan was the giant one that stretched the length of the baseline and was about 5 feet high that we unfurled before the NCSU game a few years ago the had the good ol' "If you can't go to college, go to State" slogan on it in giant letters.

Even then they didn't take it... they just suggested that it was in poor taste.

Heck, if signs were not permitted, how do you explain the D'oh faces that we handed out in the hundreds before the first UNC game without him?

I believe that this rule is a bit more lax now.

dukebluelemur
09-04-2008, 12:32 PM
The only sign that I've seen removed from Cameron in the last 8 years that was brought in by a Duke fan was the giant one that stretched the length of the baseline and was about 5 feet high that we unfurled before the NCSU game a few years ago the had the good ol' "If you can't go to college, go to State" slogan on it in giant letters.

Even then they didn't take it... they just suggested that it was in poor taste.

Heck, if signs were not permitted, how do you explain the D'oh faces that we handed out in the hundreds before the first UNC game without him?

I believe that this rule is a bit more lax now.

And I spent some decent time on that thing too :( I'm not quite sure how the entire student body chanting it is much different than having it on a sign, but ill admit the impact of the thing if they'd let it go would have been quite visually overwhelming.

But then, that was the point :) Oh well.

Inonehand
09-04-2008, 09:14 PM
in honor of Pat Johnson and his lack of playing time..."Insert Big Johnson!"

El_Diablo
09-04-2008, 11:09 PM
My uncle, an attorney in constitutional law and a UVA alum, had this to say when I asked him about how the ban relates to the First Ammendment:

"Interesting because the school's former policy - which disallowed signs deemed to be "offensive," etc. - was actually more problematic from a 1st Amendment perspective. Restrictions on speech, if allowed at all, must be "content-neutral" - i.e., you can't ban some opinions but not others. A total ban as is now in place here is less of a problem."

I thought that was interesting.

The First Amendment doesn't really apply here, unless Congress is the one banning the signs.

Edouble
09-04-2008, 11:31 PM
The First Amendment doesn't really apply here, unless Congress is the one banning the signs.

When does the First Ammendment apply then? Only when Congress tries to ban free expression? What are you talking about? It's a public university! I don't even know where to begin with this.

El_Diablo
09-05-2008, 12:54 PM
When does the First Ammendment apply then? Only when Congress tries to ban free expression? What are you talking about? It's a public university! I don't even know where to begin with this.

Well, you can begin by reading the First Amendment. The First Amendment explicitly prevents Congress from infringing upon free speech, although the Supreme Court has interpreted it broadly to encompass other government entities.

Just because UVA is mostly funded by state taxes does not mean that it is the government. Think about it...is it a First Amendment issue when your local public elementary school bans short skirts or tube tops? Or when a teacher tells students to stop talking or passing notes in class? Or when George Steinbrenner tells one of the Yankees to shave their beard? No. The underlying concept is valid...that UVA is limiting free expression. But it's not really violating someone's constitutional rights, since a person doesn't "have a right to free speech" per se...only a right to not have speech abridged by Congress (and by implication, other parts of the government).

If someone wants to stand outside the stadium with a sign that says "Duke sucks!" then they can still do it, but they don't have a protected right to go into the stadium with it. Signs can block the view of the court/field for other fans, cause arguments, and reflect poorly upon the school itself. I don't find it all that controversial to prohibit signs at sporting events, unless they were banning only specific messages. If a school can prohibit bringing glass bottles into a stadium, why not signs?

I think it's a little ridiculous to ban all signs at sporting events (but not unconstitutional).

El_Diablo
09-05-2008, 12:59 PM
When does the First Ammendment apply then? Only when Congress tries to ban free expression? What are you talking about? It's a public university! I don't even know where to begin with this.

And looking back at my first post, I didn't mean to imply that it's a First Amendment issue if and only if it's Congress banning the signs...I just used them as the most accessible example.

GADevilFan
10-03-2008, 10:15 AM
again in Virginia. Per ESPN, UVA has dropped its ban on signs, etc in the stadium....in the face of student protests...

Edouble
10-03-2008, 10:45 AM
again in Virginia. Per ESPN, UVA has dropped its ban on signs, etc in the stadium....in the face of student protests...

Do you have a link, sir?

GADevilFan
10-03-2008, 11:20 AM
I don't have the actual link.. but I read it on espn.com....the college football section.

jimsumner
10-03-2008, 12:16 PM
I wonder how they'll deal with those inevitable "fire Groh" signs.

whereinthehellami
10-03-2008, 12:25 PM
SIR, but the dontfirealgroh site (http://www.dontfirealgroh.com/) is pretty creative and funny.

rasputin
10-03-2008, 01:11 PM
Well, you can begin by reading the First Amendment. The First Amendment explicitly prevents Congress from infringing upon free speech, although the Supreme Court has interpreted it broadly to encompass other government entities.

Just because UVA is mostly funded by state taxes does not mean that it is the government. Think about it...is it a First Amendment issue when your local public elementary school bans short skirts or tube tops? Or when a teacher tells students to stop talking or passing notes in class? Or when George Steinbrenner tells one of the Yankees to shave their beard? No. The underlying concept is valid...that UVA is limiting free expression. But it's not really violating someone's constitutional rights, since a person doesn't "have a right to free speech" per se...only a right to not have speech abridged by Congress (and by implication, other parts of the government).

If someone wants to stand outside the stadium with a sign that says "Duke sucks!" then they can still do it, but they don't have a protected right to go into the stadium with it. Signs can block the view of the court/field for other fans, cause arguments, and reflect poorly upon the school itself. I don't find it all that controversial to prohibit signs at sporting events, unless they were banning only specific messages. If a school can prohibit bringing glass bottles into a stadium, why not signs?

I think it's a little ridiculous to ban all signs at sporting events (but not unconstitutional).

There certainly can be First Amendment implications to what students wear. Ask Mary Beth Tinker. Public schools can insist on modest clothing, not because the First Amendment isn't implicated, but because of the legitimacy and viewpoint neutrality of the state's interest.

grannyduke
10-05-2008, 10:03 AM
http://http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3624017

DukePA
10-05-2008, 06:02 PM
Signs have been verboten in Cameron for years, at least in the student section. Yes, people smuggled them in anyway.

I openly brought 2 signs into the graduate student section during the '06 Maryland game with no problem: Spear the Turtle and Turtles Don't Dance. Not very nice of me, but what can I say except the Devil made me do it ;)