HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nathan Eric Hampton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:42:51 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
But:
Boston University = A private institution that can enforce rules....
Paid Attendance Ticket = Implied contract that obligates the bearer....
Thus endeth the little sideshow.
 
 
Thank you Barnum. So, you are saying the University of Massachusettes cannot
enforce the same rules because it is a public institution? Wrong.
 
Two points:
(1) Fortunately, this is a common law country and not a civil law country. The
former means that the laws (meaning, enforcement, etc.) depend upon judicial
interpretation more than legislative enactment. In that interpretation, local
custom and behavior mean more than anything else, and if something is wrong
AND illegal, it is BECAUSE the behavior of the individual varies greatly from
the behavior of others, NOT because the behavior of the individual varies from
the written law.NO law is absolute, but is relative to local custom. As Ben F.
said, what language is allowed in the east would not pass here in the midwest.
 
(2) Regardless of what is acceptable vs not or what is legal vs not, the
bigger question is how the authorities deal with it -- THEIR tolerance for
behavior that deviates from the mean and THEIR sensitivity to behavior THEY do
not like. Some, like the writer from Cornell who justifies throwing people out
of arenas for swearing because there are others willing to pay to get in point
out that administrators are willing to treat people with no tolerance if the
revenues justify that treatment. Others, like David Carroll, are more in the
camp of Nathan Hale -- willing to defend one's right to speak what they think
even if they do not agree with it. This is not a discussion about what is
RIGHT OR LEGAL, but how administrators are willing to treat people they
disagree with. When I compare swearing to forcefully removing someone (without
refunding their ticket price) from an event, I tend to thing the greater evil
is with the latter.
 
Nathan Hampton
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2