It is not consensual if you are required to agree in order to attend. Saying so is stretching both the law and common sense more than a tad too far...
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- "A federal appeals court cleared the way for pat-down searches to resume at Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games, rejecting a fan's contention that they violate his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
High school teacher Gordon Johnston successfully challenged the frisking of fans entering Raymond James Stadium in three lower courts, but a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned those rulings Tuesday - saying Johnston forfeited his right to challenge the constitutionality of the pat-downs when he consented to them.
The NFL lauded the ruling.
"Pat-downs are an important part of our comprehensive security procedures, including secure facility perimeters and bag searches," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. "These limited, consensual security screenings are designed to enhance the protection and safety of our fans."Either consent or go elsewhere, is NOT unrestrained consent. Which is precisely what Mr. Johnston is upset about. It isn't...DUH...that he agreed to be searched in order to attend. He is DIS agreeing. It is the age old question of "your money or your life". Sure, you CAN take your business elsewhere, but NOT to see a professional football game. Either give up your right to a certain degree of privacy, or do not attend. This stretches the very fabric of common sense past bursting. But of course he HAS to agree in order to purchase the ducat. It is the demand that is in question. NO BLACKS ALLOWED. Okay, you're black but we'll let you in as long as you agree that it is by our pleasure you enter, and by the way sit where we tell you to or don't bother. After all, IT SAID SO ON THE TICKET so it MUST be right.
An unreasonable demand remains an unreasonable demand no matter what the fine print says.
No comments:
Post a Comment