John Lott's Website: Judge says that it is unconstitutional to search fans attending football games

7/29/2006

Judge says that it is unconstitutional to search fans attending football games

How can these searches at NFL games be unconstitutional? Is anyone being forced to go to the games? Is there any weight given to keeping fans safe from terrorism?

10 Comments:

saturdaynightspecial said...: Am I being forced to live in my home ? If not then is it constitutional to search me before I enter it?

I don't want to be kept safe from terrorists (Arab Patriots), I want to be kept safe from our government, because our government is our worst enemy - worst than any mugger, rapist, murderer or terrorist.

But more important, I don't want more security for less freedom, because I will end up with less freedom and the same amount of insecurity - that's life.

I don't want to be searched unless I've committed a serious crime, anything else is the result of blue-collar police conning and hustling me out of my precious civil rights (the thing designed to protect me from the government and it's police) under the guise of stop-and-frisk, pat downs, no-loitering, protecting the officer's safety (at the expense of mine), and then the eventual high-tech, so high-tech we will never detect the government's eyes and ears right in our bedrooms. War is an excuse to destroy liberty; and it's got to stop somewhere.

When was the last time terrorists ruined a good game ?; 7/29/2006 8:12 PM
Zendo Deb said...: if you can't be searched before a football game, why can you be searched getting onto an airliner?; 7/31/2006 8:45 AM
John Lott said...: Dear Zendo Deb:

Excellent point. It seems as if courts are just selectively picking constitutional rights based upon the judges own political views.; 8/01/2006 4:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Saturdaynightspecial said..

"... I don't want more security for less freedom, because I will end up with less freedom and the same amount of insecurity..."

Not to nit pick 3 days after the posting, but it's important to get the quotes used to justify one's arguement accurate. This quote by Ben Franklin is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I have seen people at protests (generally left leaning individuals) misquote Franklin, and, in essence, greatly change the meaning of his words ....

just an addition,
Brian; 8/01/2006 3:53 PM
saturdaynightspecial said...: "if you can't be searched before a football game, why can you be searched getting onto an airliner?"

There are some limits on searching you before boarding an airplane. Do you want your cavities searched before boarding an airplane? Do you want your ten or twelve-year-old daughter's cavities searched before boarding an airplane? It can easily be done (they could be wand raped right in front of everyone if the flying public deems it reasonable.) They can pass that metal detecting wand right up near your daughter's crotch (and your grandmother too.) Is that what you need to make you feel safe and secure ?

It's a good question about the limits of the 4th amendment and how they are determined. It's based on whether individuals expect "a reasonable degree of privacy" at specific locations, and will the public recognize the expectation of privacy. We expect our homes to be private, but not while we are in our automobiles. And keep in mind the privacy relates to individuals, not only to the public's perception on privacy or to the whim of a majority - the Bill of Rights protects every individual from the whims of a majority. If most feel a need for more security, at the expense of individual privacy, according to the Bill of Rights, most should not get what they want. That's the beauty and power of what the Framers gave to us. Most Americans do not understand that. Most believe freedom means being free to deny freedom to other Americans.

When was the last time an American terrorist, or an Arab patriot exploded a bomb in a football stadium? When was the last time, and how many times did it occur, any terrorist caused harm on a passenger airplane? Or when was it any terrorist exploded a bomb in Soldiers Field, home of the Chicago Bears ? Never. It (searches)was an excuse to trample civil rights - it was an excuse to make it easier for inept average-thinking, career-advancing, blue-collar police to catch drug users; it was another excuse for police to cover-up their penchant for hustling Americans of their civil rights - their freedom. It was another excuse for government to appear benevolent, and altruistic by making Americans believe the government was doing something good by fighting a rediculous and losing war on drugs, which harms more than it protects.

A bomb can be placed inside the heel of a jogging shoe, and it can also be placed inside an anal cavity or a vaginal cavity, or it can be placed inside a plastic bag and swallowed, defecated later inside a football stadium in the toilet rooms - right ? So how far, how much do you want us to be searched ? And is it possible to fire a $500 rocket from one's home in Chicago and hit Soldiers Field ? If yes, then we should search every home within rocket range of Soldiers Field - right ?; 8/01/2006 4:29 PM
saturdaynightspecial said...: "I have seen people at protests (generally left leaning individuals) misquote Franklin, and, in essence, greatly change the meaning of his words ...." [Brian]

It's okay, I'm glad you mention Franklin's quote. But I wasn't quoting Franklin, rather I was paraphrasing Jacob Hornberger (The Future of Freedom Foundation, FFF.org). I was also reminding readers of the reality of exchanging safety for freedom, in my own words. Both of us are aware of Franklin's amazing foresight.

The point of Franklin's famous, but now ignored quote is that we can never be completely safe and secure - there will always be threats, and exchanging freedom (more searches, more government spying on us) will not solve the problem. And when government pursues an objective (making us more safe) the end result is the opposite (less safe.) In my opinion Franklin implied that those who disagree - nazis' - should be made either vulnerable or imprisoned because they are against individual liberty and favor more government control.; 8/02/2006 5:16 AM
Brian said...: saturdaynightspeical said ..

"When was the last time an American terrorist, or an Arab patriot exploded a bomb in a football stadium?"

While I don't disagree with the limits in place (and to be expected) at searches at such places as airports and your own home, I can answer your question about whether a terrorist ever (tried) to explode a bomb at a football game..

Remember the Oklahoma Sooners game last October? A white convert to Islam praying at a mosque known for its terrrorist ties blew himself up outside the stadium. He had a backpack full of explosives.. he supposedly tried to get into the game 3 times and was turned away by security.. He walked over to a field 100 yards from the game, fiddled with his backpack and BOOM! Authorities say the one thing they were sure of is that it was not terror. Ya, right.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003652.htm
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/bomb-blast-at-university-of-oklahoma.html

Now back to your valid points...
Brian; 8/02/2006 11:52 AM
saturdaynightspecial said...: Brian,
That incident didn't ruin the game.

I admit that if there were one attempt (and there was) there could be another; and in Israel where there are many explosions, and where they could easily occur in sports stadiums, the Israelis are forced to perform searches as many here would advocate. I agree the Israelis do the right thing.

If one passenger airplane crashes killing all, do you avoid flying ? Or do you take your chances ? You don't have to fly. And more planes will crash - that is a fact.

I won't let this topic sidetrack me - our government incites this violence here in the US. The solution is to limit government's involvement in our lives, especially in foreign affairs. The best government is the government that governs least.

If one person shoots into a crowd then do we ban firearms ? Do we punish society, by making it more vulnerable, or do we except the fact that life has never been void of threats.

The worst massacre here occurred without firearms (9/11), but if the right to carry a concealed weapon had been respected it never would have occurred (or at least a shootout may have occurred on an airplane.) What would it be like, if sports fans were armed, for potential terrorists ? In Israel armed worshippers are encouraged to attend religious services - why ?

Gun bans (security measures that only limit freedom) have not stopped murder by firearms.

I never heard of this incident outside of a sporting event. But as always, one crime is another excuse for more control that never delivers more safety, only less freedom. Hitler used a terrorist attack on it's parliament to convince the German government to give him more control - it worked. That's the nature of control freaks (and government cheerleaders.)

Control freaks will always say "if one life can be saved then more control measures (and less freedom) will be worth it;" I disagree; government needs to stop trying to save every life by restricting and limiting freedom. If any person fears death
at an event then don't go, that is better than making all of us less free.

When was the last time terrorism ruined a good game ? And what is 'hearsay' ?; 8/03/2006 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Presuming this football field is private property, what authority does this judge have to interfere in any way?

There is nothing in the constitution barring private individuals (or organizations) from defining procedures/protocols on their own property. You have no 'right' to not be searched...only the government is constrained in this matter.

Don't like being searched? Don't go to the game. Your wallet speaks louder than any bureaucrat...; 8/03/2006 1:05 PM
saturdaynightspecial said...: I agree because you are right about private property; in this case (Soldier Field), it is run by the Chicago Park District - in my opinion it's community property not private property. But if we lose the war to keep freedom and rights we'll get searched everywhere they can afford to search, private and public.

But don't you agree searches are legal and neccessary when you enter a county court room ?; 8/03/2006 5:52 PM