New Sports Law Scholarship

Recently published scholarship includes: 

Jennifer M. Adams, Comment, Flag on the play: professional sports teams calling trademark infringement on their superfans, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 631 (2013) 

Jeremy R. Abrams, Comment, Making the right call:  why fairness requires independent appeals in U.S. professional sports leagues, 97 MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW 469 (2013)  

Jack Anderson, The right to a fair fight: sporting lessons on consensual harm, 17 NEW CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 55-75 (2014) 

Erin P. Andrews, Note, Avoiding the technical knockout: tackling the inadequacies of youth concussion legislation, 58 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW 417 (2013/2014)

Francis X. Baker, Comment, “Half mental”: resolving the risks posed by dual competencies in applied sport psychology, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 185 (2014) 

Daniel Berger, Constitutional combat: is fighting a form of free speech? The Ultimate Fighting Championship and its struggle against the state of New York over the message of mixed martial arts, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 381(2013) 

Daniel Bernard, Note, The NFL’s stance on gambling: a calculated contradiction, 4 UNLV GAMING LAW JOURNAL 273 (2013) 

Babette Boliek, Antitrust, regulation, and the “new” rules of sports telecasts, 65 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 501 (2014) 

Benjamin S. Bolas, Comment, Who is going to pay the Bills: an examination of the financing and lease options available to the Buffalo Bills and Ralph Wilson Stadium, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 663 (2013) 

Justin B. Bryant, Note, Analyzing the scope of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption, 89 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW 1841 (2014) 

Angela Casey Brosnan, Casenote, Remember the Titan: Matthews v. NFL leaves the playing field wide open for future compensation claimants, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 91 (2014) 

Caitlin D. Buckstaff, Note, Covering the spread: an assessment of amateurism and vulnerability of student-athletes in an emerging culture of sports wagering, 16 VANDERBILT JOURNAL ENTERTAINMENT & TECHNOLOGY LAW 133 (2013) 

Micah Bucy, Comment, The costs of the pay-to-play model in high school athletics, 13 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND LAW JOURNAL RACE, RELIGION, GENDER & CLASS 278 (2013) 

Sam Ivo Burum, Comment, Yes, NBA players should make more money: how the NLRB can change the future of collective bargaining agreements in professional sports, 63 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 845 (2014) 

Matthew R. Cali, Comment, The NCAA’s transfer of power: an analysis of future implications the proposed NCAA transfer rules will have on the landscape of college sports, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 217 (2014) 

Thomas Wyatt Cox, Note, The international war against doping: limiting the collateral damage from strict liability, 47 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL 295 (2014) 

Nigel G. Crocombe, Note, Building a new future: the 2022 FIFA World Cup as a potential catalyst for labor reform in Qatar, 37 SUFFOLK TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 33 (2014) 

Christopher R. Deubert, et al., National Football League general managers: an analysis of the responsibilities, qualifications, and characteristics, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 427 (2013) 

Vincent J. DiForte, Note, Prevent defense: will the return of the multiyear scholarship only prevent the NCAA’s success in antitrust litigation?, 79 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW 1333 (2014) 

Brian A. Dziewa, Comment, USADA the unconquerable: the one-side nature of the United States Anti-Doping Administration’s arbitration process, 58 ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL 875 (2014) 

Marc Edelman, A short treatise on amateurism and antitrust law: why the NCAA’s no-pay rules violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, 64 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW 61(2013) 

Adam Epstein, Missouri sports law, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 495 (2013) 

Gabe Feldman, A modest proposal for taming the antitrust beast, 41 PEPPERDINE LAWREVIEW 249 (2014) 

Brian R. Gallini, Bringing down a legend: how an “independent” grand jury ended Joe Paterno’scareer, 80 TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW 705 (2013) 

Bryan Gottlieb, Comment, Avoiding contractual liability to baseball players who have used performance enhancing drugs: can we knock it out of the park?, 77 ALBANY LAW REVIEW 615 (2013-2014) 

William B. Gould,IV, Bargaining, race, and globalization: how baseball and other sports mirror collective bargaining, law, and life, 48 U.S.F. LAW REVIEW 1 (2013) 

Thomas J. Grant, Jr., Comment, Green monsters: examining the environmental impact of sports stadiums, 25 VILLANOVA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 149 (2014) 

Edward H. Grimmett, Comment, NCAA amateurism and athletics: a perfect marriage or a dysfunctional relationship? — An antitrust approach to student-athlete compensation, 30 TOURO LAW REVIEW 823 (2014) 

Randy Haight, Alleging an anticompetitive impact on a discernible market: changing the antitrust landscape for collegiate athletes, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAWJOURNAL 19 (2014) 

Martin Hardie, Making visible the invisible act of doping, 27 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR SEMIOTICS LAW 85-119 (2014) 

M.Mark Heekin and Bruce W. Burton, When is minority not minority: NCAA ignores two centuries of Anglo-American contract law respecting legal status, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 39 (2014) 

Nathan M. Hennagin, Note, Blackout or blackmail? How Garber v. MLB will shed light on Major League Baseball’s broadcasting cartel, 8 BROOKLYN JOURNAL CORPORATE, FINANCIAL & COMPARATIVE LAW 158 (2013)  

Aaron Hernandez, Note, All quiet on the digital front: the NCAA’s wide discretion in regulating social media, 15 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS LAW 53 (2013) 

Josh Hunsucker, Comment, Buckle your chinstrap: why youth, high school, and college football should adopt the NFL’s concussion management policies and procedures, 45 MCGEORGE LAW REVIEW 801 (2014) 

Kevin Kehrli, Note, The unspecified specificity of sport: a proposed solution to the European Court of Justice’s treatment of the specificity of sport, 39 BROOKLYN JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL LAW 403 (2014) 

Timothy L. Kianka, Casenote, Atwater v. NELPA: casting doubt on the effect of exculpatory language in collective bargaining agreements, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 125 (2014) 

Jonathan H. Koh, Note, Performance-enhancing drugs in boxing: preventing the sweet science from becoming chemical warfare, 87 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 335 (2014) 

Lia M. Krautmanis, Filling the gap: a call for legislative action and community mobilization to implement physical education requirements in colleges and universities, 15 SCHOLAR 797 (2013)  

Konrad R. Krebs, Casenote, ESPN v. Ohio State: the Ohio Supreme Court uses FERPA to play defense for offensive athletic  programs, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 573 (2013) 

Daniel E. Lazaroff, An antitrust exemption for the NCAA: sound policy or letting the fox loose in the henhouse?, 41 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 229 (2014) 

Samantha Levin, Comment, Tweet tweet: a First Amendment wake up call regarding social media in the sports arena, 30 JOHN MARSHALL JOURNAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & PRIVACY LAW 117 (2013) 

Sara M. Lewis, Comment, Man, machine, or mutant: when will athletes abandon the human body?, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 717 (2013) 

Jacqueline R. Liguori, Casenote, Sticking the landing: How the Second Circuit’s decision in Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ. can help competitive cheerleading achieve “sport” status under Title IX, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 153 (2014) 

John Loughney, Note, Major League Baseball and the green revolution: a market-based approach to maintaining competitive balance in the face of environmental regulations, 38 WILLIAM AND MARY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY 709 (2014) 

Abigail M. Mabry, Note, Title IX: proportionality and walk-ons, 44 UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS LAW REVIEW 497 (2013) 

Christopher Marquis, Note, An equal playing field: the potential conflict between Title IX & the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment, 34 B.C. JOURNAL OF LAW & SOCIAL JUSTICE 77 (2014) 

          Michael McCann, Do You Believe He Can Fly?, Reasonable Accommodations Under the
          Americans with Disabilities Act for NBA Players with Anxiety Disorder,  41 PEPPERDINE 
          LAW REVIEW 397 (2014)

          Kiersten McKoy, Comment,  Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 58 NEW YORK LAW 

          SCHOOL LAW REVIEW 457 (2013/2014) 

Christopher Miner, Comment, Fantasy sports and the right of publicity are under further review, 30 TOURO LAW REVIEW 789-821 (2014) 

Matthew J. Mitten, The Penn State “consent decree”: the NCAA’s coercive meansdon’t justify its laudable ends, but is there a legal remedy?, 41 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 321 (2014) 

Steven Olenick et al., Finding a solution: getting professional basketball players paid overseas, 15 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS LAW 1 (2013) 

Theodore J. Patton, Going for it on fourth and long: gambling public funds on a new Vikings stadium, 7 U. ST. THOMAS JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 240 (2013) 

Matthew T. Poorman, Note, Get with the Times: why defamation law must be reformed in order to protect athletes and celebrities from media attacks, 15 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS LAW 67 (2013) 

Nick Rammell, Comment, Title IX and the dear colleague letter: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, 2014 BYU EDUCATION & LAW JOURNAL 135   

Cailyn M. Reilly, Where is concussion litigation headed? The impact of Riddell, Inc. v. Schutt Sports, Inc. on brain injury law, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 517 (2013) 

Robert J. Romano, Analyzing the United States--Japanese Player Contract Agreement: is this agreement in the best interest of Major League Baseball players and if not, should the MLB Players Association challenge the legality of the Agreement as a violation of federal law?, 15 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS LAW 19 (2013) 

Stephen F. Ross et al., Judicial review of NCAA eligibility decisions: evaluation of the Restitution Rule and a call for arbitration, 40 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LAW 79 (2014) 

M. Alexander Russell, Note, Leveling the playing field: identifying a quasi-fiduciary relationship between coaches and student-athletes, 43 JOURNAL OF LAW AND EDUCATION 289 (2014) 

Christopher W. Schmidt, Explaining the baseball revolution, 45 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL 1471 (2013)  

Rachel Schwarz, Note, Timeout! Getting back to what Title IX intended and encouraging courts and the Office of Civil Rights to re-evaluate the three-prong compliance test, 20 WASHINGTON AND LEE JOURNAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS & SOCIAL JUSTICE 633 (2014) 

Ladan Shelechi, “Say uncle”: New York’s chokehold over live performance of mixed martial arts:whether combat sports are protectable speech and how much regulation is appropriate for inherently dangerous sports, 33 LOYOLA L.A. ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW205 (2013) 

Sean Sheridan, Comment, Bite the hand that feeds: holding athletics boosters accountable for violations of NCAA bylaws, 41 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065 (2013) 

Kyle D. Simcox, Comment, Selling your soul at the crossroads: the need for a harmonized standard limiting the publicity rights of professional athletes, 63 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW 87 (2013) 

Jennifer Simile, Intentional grounding: field quality in the NFL and the legal ramifications for choice of playing surfaces, 47 JOHN MARSHALL LAW REVIEW 115 (2013) 

Evan Simonsen, Note, Against the spread: the legality of full-service sports wagering kiosks, 4 UNLV GAMING LAW JOURNAL 241 (2013) 

Scott Skinner-Thompson and Ilona M. Turner, Title IX’s protections for transgender student athletes,28 WISCONSIN JOURNAL OF LAW GENDER & SOCIETY 271 (2013) 

Rodney K. Smith, Head injuries, student welfare, and saving college football: a game plan for the NCAA, 41 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 267 (2014) 

Sam B. Smith, Note, Show me the mediation!: introducing mediation prior to salary arbitration in Major League Baseball, 42 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW 1007 (2014) 

Jeffrey Standen, Foot faults in crunch time: temporal variance in sports law and antitrust regulation, 41 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 349 (2014) 

Seth William Stern, Casenote, The IRS’s double-bogey: Goosen v. Commissioner remains a fairway to characterize endorsement income for nonresident alien athletes in Garcia v. Commissioner, 20 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 605 (2013) 

Matthew Tymann, Note, Locked out without a key: how the Eighth Circuit wielded a pro-labor statute as a sword against labor, 99 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 953 (2014)  

Justin C. Vine, Note, Leveling the playing field:  student athletes are employees of their university, 12 CARDOZO PUBLIC LAW POLICY & ETHICS JOURNAL 235 (2013)  

Matthew R. Watson, The dark heart of Eastern Europe: applying the British model to football-related violence and racism, 27 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 1055 (2013) 

Wolfgang S. Weber, Comment, Preserving baseball’s integrity through proper drug testing: time for the Major League Baseball Players Association to let go of its collective bargaining reins, 85 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW 267 (2014) 

Ashleigh Weinbrecht, Note, The connection between concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in professional athletics:  a necessary change in the "sports culture" in light of legal barriers, 14 JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY 309 (2013) 

Maureen A. Weston,  Symposium introduction:The New Normal in College Sports: Realigned and Reckoning, 41 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 209 (2014) 

Adam G. Yoffie, There’s a new sheriff in town: Commissioner-Elect Adam Silver & the pressing legal challenges facing the NBA through the prism of contraction, 21 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 59 (2014)

Stone on sex discrimination and professional sports

The following is by my colleague (and past GuestPrawf) Kerri Stone, responding to my post on how professional sports teams and leagues respond to sex discrimination.

The internet has most recently been ablaze with news of a lawsuit filed against the New York Mets by an ex-employee who claims that she was chastised and then fired due to her status as an unmarried pregnant woman. On the heels of other notorious stories of discrimination to come out of the sports world this past year, like Donald Sterling’s racist comments, Richie Incognito’s racially tinged bullying of a teammate, and the Atlanta Hawks’ general manager Danny Ferry taking an indefinite leave of absence after coming under fire for his racially-stereotyped comments about a player, this latest story has many clamoring for justice—whatever that will mean in this scenario.

Recently, my colleague, Howard Wasserman, blogged about various incidents of discrimination in the sports world, taking note of their wildly varying upshots and reactions generated. He asked whether we could “find anything resembling consistent and appropriate responses to possibly improper or unlawful employment practices,” and posited that factors that might be in play could include, among others, whether formal, legal action had been initiated, whether it is sexism or racism that is alleged, and whether video or audio recordings of the discriminatory sentiments exist. These observations are astute. I would add that the role of shame in these incidents has become central. Some years ago, I blogged about the role of shame in accomplishing the eradication of discrimination in a way that even the law could not, but I pointed out that the shame has to be public, even viral, in order to move most employers to act. From what we have seen in the sports world as of late, the ability of those involved or even of those who know about the discriminatory sentiments expressed by sports players, managers, and executives to stir up outrage on the part of the public appears to be central to whether or not those in a position to discipline or dismiss these individuals will act.

Title VII prohibits racial, sex-based, and other discrimination in the workplace. It is clear that while the statute’s goal is to eradicate the erosion of individuals’ terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of discrimination, it is not supposed to function as a general civility code, requiring anyone to change the way they think, feel, or express themselves when that expression is not anchored to workplace-based harassment or deprivation. In other words, as the Supreme Court has put it, “discrimination in the air,” unmoored from some adverse action or campaign of workplace harassment, is not actionable; it is only when discrimination is “brought to the ground and visited upon an employee,” that it becomes something for which we permit legal recovery.

It is interesting, then, that there has been such pressure on sports teams and leagues to undertake voluntarily to do what the law does not require them to do—to distance themselves from those who espouse racist, sexist, or other offensive views. To be sure, if the Mets executive who alleges that she was taunted and fired for being an unwed mom-to-be persuades a trier that these things did, indeed, happen, she will prevail in court. But what about the rest of the outrage? The offenses unaccompanied by legal harm? What if the executive had not been fired and her teasing had not risen to the rather high threshold of intolerability and consistency needed to render it actionable harassment as opposed to mere, permissible incivility? The public needs to understand that the law does not necessarily comport with public sentiment on these issues. “Discrimination in the air” is not actionable.

Moreover, the public needs to appreciate the fact that while high-profile shaming and pressure on professional sports organizations may effectuate the kind of personnel and cultural changes that the law cannot, discrimination—both in the air and grounded upon employees—is rife in all kinds of workplaces. There are no high profile campaigns of shame at a typical truckstop diner or even in a big box store chain. But the same sense of “humor” that allegedly compelled the Mets higher-up to continually joke about the morality of single motherhood or fuels racially stereotyped depictions, contempt, or observations in the upper echelons of the NBA or Major League Baseball also pervades everyday workplaces. And often, employees are either not believed when they report it, or even if they are, it does not matter because the hostility or microaggressions, as they have been termed, are not anchored to an adverse action or part and parcel of actionable harassment. The difference is that in these lower-profile cases, no one cares. The highers-up who harbor these views are often high up enough on the ladder to be valued and thus retained, unscathed, by employers, but anonymous and uncared-about enough to elude public shaming or outcry. The law’s gaps and holes allow us to be selective about how and when we, as a society, can demand justice in the form of the censure or termination of those who express discriminatory, stereotyped, or just plain hateful beliefs, and that selectivity breeds inconsistency and randomness even more dramatic across workplaces than that decried by Professor Wasserman in his sports blog.

Is it time for the law to come into line with the wishes and expectations of society as evinced by the decrying of “discrimination in the air” that we have seen in the media in response to what is going on in professional sports? Or is it the case that if all of those who demand the firing of high profile racists or sexists wouldn't really want the law to require what they are demanding if they thought it through? It is wholly inconsistent for us to say that we demand the ouster of a team coach or manager on the basis of his sentiments unmoored from action, but that we wish for less glamorous, less known, but perhaps as well compensated bosses in the private sector to retain an absolute right to their private dealings and expressions, with no job consequences?

Some Perspective, Please

The current NFL crisis is entirely of Goodell’s own making. A professional football player is caught on videotape punching his fiancé. The league’s commissioner hands out a woefully inappropriate two game suspension. He now admits he was wrong and advises the league will revamp its Personal Conduct Policy and have every player undergo “abuse awareness training.”

The media and public response? In national publications and across social media, NFL players are characterized as “common street thugs.” When I read that word “thug” again and again, I hear Seattle cornerback Richard Sherman correctly telling us “Thug is the new N-word.” In America, it does not take long for racism to rear its ugly head, particularly when it comes to attitudes toward professional athletes.

Let’s have some perspective, always a difficult task in the world of sports. There are 1696 players in the NFL and another 250 or so on practice squads. In Goodell’s 8 years as commissioner, there have been 57 cases of domestic abuse or 7 cases a year. That comes to about .5%, which is less than half the rate across the country. No doubt these numbers are low because many cases are unreported, but there is no reason to believe the percentage of unreported cases is greater in the NFL than across the general population. The highest rate of such offenses is in Nevada followed by most of the southern states. Those in law enforcement have a rate double the national average. Indeed, Alabama Federal District Judge Mark Fuller plead guilty two weeks ago to violently beating his wife in a deal that will have his record expunged once he undergoes counseling. The rate of domestic violence by players in the NFL is thus considerably less than for those who work in other occupations.

This is not to suggest domestic violence is a minor offense. Ray Rice committed a despicable act and the Commissioner should have handed down a punishment worthy of the offense. But let’s be wary of those who are quick to paint all NFL players or professional athletes generally with the same brush, particularly when they are working with an all too familiar palette.

Dark Days in the ICC

Sports fans in America and readers of this Blog no doubt have had their fill of NFL players suspended for spousal assault and of MLBers like the Orioles Chris Davis removed from the game for taking banned substances like Ritilin. (Ritilin! Only fifth grade boys with sphilkes should be allowed to take such a thing.)

But athletes behaving badly are not confined to these shores. Consider the hubbub brewing in the lands where Cricket is king. The International Cricket Council has just suspended indefinitely one of the sport’s real stars, Pakistan's Saeed Ajmal. Ajmal is what Cricket fans know as an off spin bowler, meaning he uses his fingers and wrist to spin the ball toward a right-handed batsman or away from a lefthander. Essentially, he throws what we in the colonies think of as a slider. And he does it better than anyone.

Using the magic of videotape and rather sophisticated testing equipment at its headquarters in Dubai, the Council found definitive proof that Ajmal (sit down if you are squeamish) bowled all his deliveries with an elbow flex greater than the legal limit of 15 degrees. That’s right: greater than 15 friggin degrees.

As you probably know, a cricket bowler (think pitcher) is not allowed to straighten his arm and throw the ball (the cricketeers call this “chucking” and the result is a “no ball”). Only his shoulder’s rotation can provide velocity. The legal limit of straightening the elbow is 15 degrees and, as I said before, Ajmal’s elbow routinely went beyond that limit.

The last time Cricket had such a controversy was the famous “no ball” scandal of 1995, when Australian Umpire Darrell Hair no balled Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for throwing, calling the Shri Lankan’s actions “diabolical.” When the Council investigated the incident, it found the bowler had a congenital elbow deformity that caused his peculiar delivery. The ICC later found the Umpire, who received numerous death threats after the match, guilty “of bringing the game into disrepute.”

Let it be said, we shrink from no controversies here at the Sports Law Blog. We abhor Ajmal’s suspension and consider the Council’s action just dreadful.

For those interested, the 9th Circuit is hearing the appeal of Barry Bonds' conviction and it is being livestreamed here

:

Call for Papers: "The New Era in Gaming Law"

The Northern Kentucky Law Review and NKU Chase College of Law seek submissions for their symposium, "The New Era in Gaming Law," on March 20, 2015 in Highland Heights, Kentucky (just 7 miles from Cincinnati, Ohio).

OVERVIEW: The transnational character of gaming has generated difficult legal questions involving jurisdiction, regulation, and legality. Possible panel topics include online poker, sports betting, fantasy gambling, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, and the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. Related matters include public and private enforcement of anti-gaming statutes, constitutional issues pertinent to gaming (commandeering, the dormant commerce clause), jurisdictional issues, and taxation of gaming revenues and winnings.

The symposium will focus in particular on the interaction between extant legal and regulatory frameworks and the dynamic gaming industry. Participants will explore these issues and topics in light of recent judicial decisions and regulatory initiatives.

SUBMISSIONS & IMPORTANT DATES:
- Please submit materials here: nkylrsymposium@nku.edu
- Submission deadline for abstracts: October 13, 2014
- Submission deadline for first draft of manuscripts: December 15, 2014
- Submission deadline for completed articles: January 12, 2015
- Symposium date: March 20, 2015

LAW REVIEW PUBLISHED ARTICLE: The Northern Kentucky Law Review will review, edit, and publish papers from the symposium. Papers are invited from scholars and practitioners related to the program. Please submit a title and abstract (of 500-1000 words) or draft paper for works in progress. Abstracts or drafts should be submitted by email by October 13, 2014. Submissions may be accepted on a rolling basis after that time until all speaking positions are filled.

FURTHER INFORMATION: For more information please visit or contact:
- Email nkylrsymposium@nku.edu
- Rick Pandorf, symposium editor: 513.886.4878
- http://bit.ly/1miCpTZ

Fan speech, once again

The ejection of a fan from the park (at the insistence of the umpire) from Atlanta's Turner Field, apparently for profanely heckling an opposing player, could raise some First Amendment problems. The park is apparently owned by the Atlanta Fulton County Recreational Authority, a public entity, and leased to the Braves (no doubt on very favorable terms). Just like in the one case to directly address free speech at a publicly owned ballpark, involving old Yankee Stadium, which was owned by New York City and leased to the team. And as I have written previously, if "Fuck the Draft" is ok in a courthouse, then "You fucking suck" is ok at a publicly owned or operated ballpark. And it does not matter whether the order to remove the fan came from team officials or the umpire.

I hope a lawsuit is coming.