Tuesday, July 17, 2007
No! Freedom! Run!
Well, at least the majority was comfortable with someone doing something without government control.
Basically, some lamers sued the 49ers for their policy of patting down folks who show up to the game. They lost, because they had waived their right to privacy by buying the tickets.
Dissenting Justice Maria Rivera said the ruling dismissed privacy rights too casually and could be extended to allow grocery stores to pat down their customers, or allow football teams to strip-search their fans, as long as they had notice of the policy. Um... yeah. That's correct. I'm not sure what a horrible fate it would be if that grocery store approach was allowed. I get the impression that, if Safeway picked up a pat-down policy, "Won'tPatYouDownWay" would suddenly see a boom in business. The football league issue is slightly different, though:
"The courts' role in protecting privacy rights should not be so readily abdicated, particularly where, as here, the private actor (the 49ers) has an effective monopoly," Rivera said. "If you are the only game in town, requiring your customers to either submit to a pat-down search or walk away does not present the kind of genuine choice upon which the majority's reasoning is premised." Would the backlash be strong enough for a "Won't strip-search you" football league? And if not, is this an issue? Do we have the right to attend football games at all, much less without losing privacy?
. . .
|
. . .
|
