NCAA Ejects Reporter For Live-Blogging A Game
from the owning-facts dept
Major League Baseball has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to claiming ownership of the "facts" of a game, claiming that any outside description of the game is a violation -- which clearly goes beyond both the intent and the letter of the law. It appears that the NCAA college-level baseball is copying their big brother in this attitude. Logan alerts us to the news that the NCAA forbade any reporters at the college regionals from issuing any kind of live reports during the game, and then ejected a reporter who was live blogging the game. This is bizarre for any number of reasons -- especially since live blogging sporting events has become quite popular in the last year or two and is seen as a great way for fans to remain connected to the game. It's tremendously beneficial to the game, so it's hard to see the complaint. At the same time, the newspaper who employs the reporter appears to be overreacting just as bit as well, claiming this is a First Amendment issue. The NCAA certainly has the right to determine who gets a press pass and what the conditions are for that press pass (no matter how dumb those conditions are). If the reporter wants to live blog the game while watching it from seats purchased by the newspaper or on TV, the NCAA couldn't stop him. The NCAA isn't preventing him from live blogging the game entirely -- just from doing so with a press pass. It may be incredibly stupid, but it's hardly a First Amendment violation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1
In this case it isn't a violation because the reporter had a contract with them not to do this as a condition of obtaining a press pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1
Perhaps we should cut right through the hyperbole and see what the First Amendment actually says:Note the operative word: "Congress". Hence, private organizations cannot possibly infringe on your First Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1
The expansion of property rights is enforced by the government. Therefore, when individuals enforce property rights beyond those that were penned at the time of the constitution, they are abridging freedom of speech under the authority of the government. It is property rights, therefore, that are the mechanism by which people are made not free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment
I don't see anywhere it is claimed that congress passed a law banning this guy from games...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st Amendment
The Constitution provides the framework of gov't behavior; its relationship to its constituent parts and its relationship to the governed. Not the relationship between members of the public, including corporate entities such as the NCAA and a newspaper company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regardless, personal contracts do not supercede the constitution. So in this case, IF first amendment applied here (which it doesn't) the contract would be void because it was unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curve ball
The NCAA (and MLB for that matter) would rather have more ppl come to the game, listen to it on the radio, watch it on TV, or read the newspaper the next morning, so they can get more money from advertisers and what not. It's all about the benjamins. It has nothing to do with his First Amendment rights.
Same rules apply to someone going into a movie theatre, and recording a movie and re-producting it. Just because you bought a ticket, doesn't mean your entitled to the content, whether it's a ball game or Ocean's 13.
Now that being said, I do not agree with the NCAA and MLB on their gestapo tactics when it comes to the suppression of America's favorite past time. But that is neither here nor there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curve ball
No. The NCAA doesn't get to decide what's infringing on their rights. Simply blogging what's happening is not infringement under any law.
The NCAA (and MLB for that matter) would rather have more ppl come to the game, listen to it on the radio, watch it on TV, or read the newspaper the next morning, so they can get more money from advertisers and what not.
In what world would a live blog actually take away from any of those things? If anything, it's likely to increase the likelihood of all of those things.
Same rules apply to someone going into a movie theatre, and recording a movie and re-producting it. Just because you bought a ticket, doesn't mean your entitled to the content, whether it's a ball game or Ocean's 13.
This isn't recording a movie and reproducing it. This is blogging about what's going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about getting money from distribution channel
It'd be no different from someone bringing a camcorder to a game, and broadcasting it. The NCAA doesn't get ad revenue from that, so it doesn't benefit them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh is ever refreshing to see others with a
Yes, the 1st Ammendment applies only to Congress, forbiding laws that establish a state religion or abridge the freedom of speech and the press; the right to assemble.
Yes, private entities, companies, individuals CAN limit your speech. Just as I would limit your speech if you were to visit my home. Just as companies today limit your speech to not divulge secrets&proprietary information. Just as public areas have Noise Ordinances.
You cannot force your bad language on to me or my home.
P.S. that is not separation of church and state;
and that is the freedom to use assembly language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh is ever refreshing to see others with a
Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything you want without fear of reprisal. You can definitely be slapped for committing slander or libel, and blabbing State secrets can get you life in solitary confinement.
Freedom of religion does not mean that you do anything you want in the name of religion. Human sacrifice is illegal regardless of what religion you claim to belong to.
And etcetera. Too many people believe that "freedom" means freedom of responsibility for their actions, and that was not at all the intention of the Bill of Rights.
/soapbox rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what all you constitutional law experts are say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what all you constitutional law experts are
But does the fact that the NCAA was created by order of a sitting President of the United States (Theodore Roosevelt in 1906) play into this at all? The President isn't "Congress" after all, but I think we'd all agree it's a role within the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what all you constitutional law experts
"The NCAA was founded in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt as a result of numerous injuries and deaths caused by college football’s flying wedge."
Peace y'all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what all you constitutional law experts are
BTW, I don't claim to be an "expert" on constitutional law; I can, however, read the Constitution and understand what it says. Once you have a basic understanding of the language and mindset of the Founders, it's not really that difficult to understand the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old article
Sorry you're so bored by the things which directly influence technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kentucky Constitution:
The University of Louisville “is a state supported research university”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no first amendment, but still arbitrary.
As for the live blogging restriction, it's kind of silly that you're not allowed to blog it live too much there, but you can broadcast the entire incident. You can also blog based off of the video feeds that others broadcast. It seems rather arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]