alt.hn

3/29/2025 at 12:08:15 AM

Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

 https://www.theverge.com/news/637228/madison-square-garden-james-dolan-facial-recognition-fan-ban

by helloworld

3/29/2025 at 5:53:05 AM

If they pulled Miller out of the line and only then checked his photo ID, and the allegation is they used facial recognition to trigger this, then that implies they already had his biometrics in their database.

The legal disclaimer shown at the venue implies that the biometrics are collected (and “retained, stored, and converted”) at the venue. That’s clearly only half of the story. They must also be collecting (and retaining, storing, and converting) information about anyone using sources outside the venue.

The implication from chronology of the story is that MSG must have done something like googled Miller, found his LinkedIn bio-pic, and put that in their “safety and security” database?

I think we can conclude therefore that the disclaimer sign is not a quasi-legal disclaimer to let the venue record your face, but in fact a canard to divert your attention from the fact that they have already created records linking your face to your name — records created without your consent and without letting you know they did it.

by gorgoiler

3/29/2025 at 9:58:25 AM

They scrap adversarial law firms websites for photos of employees to ban them so yeah.

by conradfr

3/29/2025 at 3:53:19 PM

Is that legal? This would be a clear GDPR violation in Europe.

You could probably argue a legitimate interest if you're collecting face recognition data on proven hooligans, but scraping pictures of people that have not been to your venue off a website clearly isn't a legitimate interest for such privacy invasion.

by t0mas88

3/29/2025 at 7:26:07 PM

Laws are no longer enforced in the US.

by Henchman21

3/29/2025 at 8:01:01 PM

I'd amend this to Laws against corporations abusing privacy or consumer wellbeing.

by collingreen

3/29/2025 at 10:45:39 PM

That is entirely too narrow. Laws that constrain the government are being ignored. Thats a LOT more than just privacy. Or “consumer wellbeing”, which as a term reviles me — We the People are more than mere consumers — but I take your meaning generally.

Much too narrow. They’re ignoring due process. Just ask anyone not white detained by ICE. (Is that everyone detained by ICE?)

by Henchman21

3/30/2025 at 12:39:50 AM

That's fair - plenty of checks and balances are gone, even the ones that relied mostly on decorum and shame. My expectations were already quite low but I've been surprised just how openly and directly the fundamental rights are being attacked and equally surprised by how many people are happily cheering as it happens.

I like the perspective that we are more than mere consumers. I think that's a valid thing to be clear about although consumer protection as a concept doesn't feel belittling to me as a human (nor would I want it to extend to my entire life anyway).

by collingreen

3/29/2025 at 10:53:04 PM

[dead]

by dkkergoog

3/29/2025 at 5:55:26 PM

If a 3-person law firm is suing you, and the law firm has a web site with photos of its 3 lawyers, it seems reasonable to add those photos to a pinboard at your entrance, so security staff know to look our for those folks, and not to allow them to come into your place of business (unless they arrive for an appointment, e.g. for a deposition).

What if the law firm has thousands of employees and you don't know exactly which ones might be working on your case at any given time? What if your entrance has a high volume of visitors and it's not practical for your security team to stop each of those people for minutes, whilst they check them against a set of thousands of photos?

by rahimnathwani

3/29/2025 at 6:24:31 PM

Speculating but likely these beforehand records are added manually.

by mixmastamyk

3/29/2025 at 4:42:57 AM

> “Frank Miller Jr. made threats against an MSG executive on social media and produced and sold merchandise that was offensive in nature,” Mikyl Cordova, executive vice president of communications and marketing for the company, said in an emailed statement.

If he made threats, what were the threats?

If he didn't make threats, does this written statement, from a communications executive, to a journalist, intended for news publication, constitute libel?

by neilv

3/29/2025 at 9:53:09 AM

Yes.

by yard2010

3/29/2025 at 5:39:11 AM

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but I don't see how it wouldn't be.

But realistically, how worth it would it be for this graphic designer to battle a narcissistic, petty billionaire in court?

US civil court is truly fucked. Criminal as well, for that matter. Ok, the entire judicial branch really. And the executive branch, and legislative, law enforcement, public health, education....

As an aside, what's the easiest country in the EU for immigration?

by zonkerdonker

3/29/2025 at 3:58:44 PM

Netherlands if you qualify as a knowledge worker, which is super easy for anyone with a university degree. This could change since the new government isn't very enthusiastic about it, but for now it's a straight "Welcome and here is a 30% tax break for your first 5 years" as long as you meet a quite low minimum income number. And even lower if you come in on a student visum first, they recognise that a starter job is lower paid.

by t0mas88

3/29/2025 at 6:19:18 PM

> As an aside, what's the easiest country in the EU for immigration?

The one(s) whose language(s) you already speak, unless you're rich enough for an investor visa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_investor_programs#In...

(While Germany may be tempting especially with all the English used in tourist areas, be aware it's not for nothing that native German speakers use in real life a phrase which translates as "The German language is difficult").

Most of the EU, but not Denmark or Ireland, also theoretically have the Blue Card scheme; but I say "theoretically" because that's a bureaucratic streamlining, the actual granting is still done at national level and from what I've heard different countries grant them at different rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Card_(European_Union)

by ben_w

3/29/2025 at 10:46:14 PM

Actually had to think about what phrase you meant here. For other readers' benefit, it is "Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache", which is indeed a known phrase (with the obvious direct translation)

by Valodim

4/1/2025 at 7:10:42 AM

Russia is easy to immigrate to for anyone sharing traditional values. Rich culture, English-friendly, big opportunities for specialists. Weather is not perfect, but the Global Warming is working on it. One of the last islands of sanity in those wild times.

I've seen another American Village project near Moscow a few days ago, they do most of the hard work for you and help with the formalities. Houses are nice too. Not my cup of tea personally — I'm more of a city dweller — but the people there looked happy.

by Livanskoy

3/29/2025 at 2:49:19 PM

> easiest country in the EU for immigration?

Since the Mediterranean crisis and the Ukraine crisis: none. Although Ireland won't impose a language requirement so you might start there.

by pjc50

3/29/2025 at 6:13:15 PM

[dead]

by sieabahlpark

3/29/2025 at 4:34:14 AM

His behavior was disrespectful and disruptive and in violation of our code of conduct.

Certainly not the first time a vague and imposing "code of conduct" has caused trouble.

by userbinator

3/29/2025 at 3:41:20 AM

I'm sure this is just an isolated incident and we won't see anything like this happening in the future.

by hettygreen

3/29/2025 at 1:10:37 AM

If somebody did that to my kid, I wouldn’t be enjoying any shows there, ever. Absolute cattle.

by hello_computer

3/29/2025 at 4:26:02 AM

They seem to get away with it. The fact the did it to a lawyer preciously. If they had to pay millions in damages for this nonsense, this would stop.

The fact that the “security” team is going through online images to feed into there facial recognition banning software is kind of weird and creepy.

I look forward to continuing to not going to MSG and company, as they are far far away from me.

by acomjean

3/29/2025 at 10:50:36 PM

> The fact that the “security” team is going through online images to feed into there facial recognition banning software is kind of weird and creepy.

Why would any team go through anything? I'm sure can just ask AI to maintain a list of offenders, fully automated. So much more efficient.

by Valodim

3/29/2025 at 9:18:17 AM

It feels like this should be illegal.

by ungreased0675

3/29/2025 at 5:41:12 PM

Is there an image of the shirt?

I assume that embedded Instagram post is a pic of the shirt, but I don't have Instagram so it's a big blank box with a link to "View this post on Instagram".

It's ironic that on this post about a large corporation abusing its power, they are requiring the user to use Instagram to get the full context..

by Arcuru

3/29/2025 at 10:48:26 PM

It is a fairly plain shirt with a basketball design that reads "Ban Dolan"

by Valodim

3/31/2025 at 12:37:13 AM

Congress should pass bipartisan legislation that people in this situation, albeit rare, get a full refund at a minimum, or at least be able to predetermine if they’re banned.

by cyberge99

3/30/2025 at 12:43:45 PM

Isn’t this the deal we’ve made? You can, legally, deny someone access to private property for any non-protected reason.

On the other hand, if the private property was constructed with public monies, which MSG probably was, that’s an interesting debate. Should the involvement of public money confer first amendment protections of some sort? I think it should.

Edit: You can’t use “my” money to build something and then ban me from it because I said something (non-protected) about the CEO of the company that owns it.

by conover

3/29/2025 at 6:45:44 PM

I don't understand why there's so much focus on facial recognition on this article?

The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out.

I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?

by try_the_bass

3/29/2025 at 7:29:25 PM

IIRC, he didn’t even buy the ticket? At no point was his name used in the transaction, so how exactly did they know this person was at MSG in the first place? The conjecture is facial recognition.

by Henchman21

3/29/2025 at 7:34:52 PM

> Miller says that after he scanned his digital ticket, but before he went through security, a person working at Radio City stopped the line, pulled him aside, and asked him for his ID to verify who he was.

Most venues require a name on the ticket, and many will validate that the person holding the ticket is the person who is named on the ticket.

This is a very common anti-scalping measure.

by try_the_bass

3/30/2025 at 12:17:45 AM

This is absolutely not true in my experience (MLB, NFL, NBA). It’s very very common for one person to buy tickets for their whole party (this is how you make sure you’re sitting together) and there’s no part of the purchase or checkin flow where you’re even asked for the names of the people in your party.

Maybe for Taylor swift tickets or something they have stronger rules but it’s definitely not true as a matter of course in American major professional sports that each ticket holder needs to have their identity on file

by longdustytrail

3/30/2025 at 1:00:28 AM

Ah, my experience is mostly around music or convention tickets, both of which often require verifying identity at the door to prevent scalping. They generally also make transferring tickets a pain, which is sad when someone in your group inevitably changes plans.

by try_the_bass

3/30/2025 at 7:44:10 PM

this is just downright false unless a transfer occurred or you are trying to get into a venue's pavilion, and security's being extra detailed.

source: literally seen quite a few hundreds of concerts.

by _proofs

3/29/2025 at 7:30:50 PM

There must be many thousands of people named Frank Miller, Jr. So something in addition to the name had to be used.

by moioci

3/29/2025 at 7:35:13 PM

That's why they pulled him aside and asked for his ID?

by try_the_bass

3/29/2025 at 3:55:05 AM

It's not surprising as James Dolan is a pretty notorious asshole.

by comrh

3/29/2025 at 5:48:35 AM

Way too much circle jerking in this thread over what the first amendment means as if people a few hundred years ago had a better grasp on what is right and wrong in today’s context than anyone living and breathing and thinking today. In my opinion the deference given to what long dead people wrote is a cause of many of this country’s problems. It’s supposed to be a living constitution and we’re still trying to divine what those dead people meant by their more obscure statements with a radically different context than what we have face today.

by tstrimple

3/29/2025 at 6:05:15 AM

I don’t give a shit about first amendment interpretations and I agree completely that laws need an update. How about this: ban biometric detection. Ban facial recognition. Throw the CEO in jail if a company breaks the ban. That would be a good use of government power. Fuck the surveillance state, it’s not a place I want to live - and we don’t have to accept it.

by hallway_monitor

3/30/2025 at 9:56:28 PM

American Dream (TM). Freedom of speech at its best.

by HackerThemAll

3/29/2025 at 11:59:39 AM

iTT: as new group of people banned from MSG properties lol.

by K0balt

3/29/2025 at 12:20:41 AM

[flagged]

by zfg

3/29/2025 at 2:21:16 AM

This is not a 1st amendment issue.

This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life.

Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp.

We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk dystopia and none of the flying cars or bio-enhancements.

by mingus88

3/29/2025 at 11:48:32 AM

While that may be technically correct I don't think it's actually correct. Just because it doesn't violate the 1st amendment doesn't mean it doesn't violate free speech.

Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is also a type of society. Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.

by harimau777

3/29/2025 at 2:51:22 PM

> Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.

Well, yes, but I'd say the more important part is that students are having their visas revoked and being pulled off the street into immigration detention because of social media posts.

by pjc50

3/29/2025 at 3:42:32 AM

it's a 1st ammendment issue

in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart

because citizen-president Trump is a power bully

but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond

consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself

it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land

by ysofunny

3/29/2025 at 4:14:15 AM

A private company restricting speech is a freedom of speech issue in the general sense, but most certainly not a First Amendment issue.

Of course that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to happen, or that there should not be any laws preventing it.

by lxgr

3/29/2025 at 4:13:24 AM

First amendment is protection from the government, not by the government. It wasn't the government that blocked the speech so it wasn't a first amendment issue

by cosmotic

3/29/2025 at 4:17:50 AM

It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does.

If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

by zfg

3/29/2025 at 4:28:52 AM

> It is protection by the state.

It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

by mulmen

3/29/2025 at 5:02:10 AM

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

by zfg

3/29/2025 at 2:48:32 PM

Please read the first amendment:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.

by DrillShopper

3/29/2025 at 9:56:35 PM

Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state.

You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments.

Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.

by zfg

3/31/2025 at 1:51:20 AM

> Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government.

> It only says that government won't make laws restricting it.

These are the same thing. Further, private corporations have editorial control over what they allow in their publications or on their platforms which is also free speech. Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is required by The First Amendment to publish every letter it receives? That a website is required to leave scam comments or spam up? The no corporate owned platform can moderate in any way?

by DrillShopper

3/29/2025 at 8:08:44 PM

The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds.

If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

by mulmen

3/29/2025 at 9:57:11 PM

Nope. Here's a corporation that tried to restrict speech and failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

by zfg

3/30/2025 at 12:37:29 AM

An interesting precedent for sure but it’s worth noting that a company tried and failed to use this precedent to argue that spam filtering is a violation of the first amendment

by longdustytrail

3/29/2025 at 5:27:22 AM

> as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond

Really we're going backwards here

Digital literacy in the younger generations is dropping, and even language literacy is not where it used to be

It's kind of shocking to see these stats regress in my lifetime but they are

by bluefirebrand

3/29/2025 at 5:55:25 AM

What metrics are available on these things? Is it based on a survey?

by mmooss

3/29/2025 at 2:26:18 AM

> This is not a 1st amendment issue.

It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker.

If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.

by zfg

3/29/2025 at 3:15:45 PM

> If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery

Government does, but other entities don’t.

I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here.

The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court.

It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.

by rdtsc

3/29/2025 at 8:05:24 PM

You're right but there is something to be said about the responsibility of the system/government/society to prevent private overlords who can effectively stifle/chill speech because of their monopolistic power.

Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.

by collingreen

3/29/2025 at 2:31:20 AM

The 1A protects citizens from the government. Presently the government is being systematically dismantled from the inside.

Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger.

That’s late stage capitalism.

by mingus88

3/29/2025 at 3:36:19 AM

It can be both.

The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.

by thayne

3/29/2025 at 4:22:15 AM

That’s not the interpretation of pretty much any court in the history of the United States.

In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself.

Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.

by lxgr

3/29/2025 at 4:39:27 AM

This is incorrect. An important case is Marsh vs Alabama. [1]

A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point:

---

The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

---

That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

by somenameforme

3/30/2025 at 1:13:34 PM

This interpretation seems like the exception proving the rule. If it were consistently applied, as you say, social media companies should logically also be required to carry all speech.

The reasonable democratic thing to do here would be to propose new legislation explicitly covering the protection of speech "on private property", pass it if deemed desirable, and just be done with it.

Of course, the problem with that is that such a law might be seen to actually contradict the First Amendment (compelled speech and all), so it would possibly have to be a constitutional amendment, and that's obviously not happening. I really have no idea on how to get out of this mess, yet doing so seems extremely important.

by lxgr

3/30/2025 at 5:20:46 PM

The point of the ruling is that 'private property' is not, in all cases, strictly defined by private vs public ownership. The more a property is treated in a fashion akin to a public property, the more the rights of the owners become constrained in a fashion similar to the 'normal' owners of public properties - the government. So for instance a similar case was Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck [1] in which somebody was trying to argue that public access TV should be considered a public space, which would lead to some rather interesting TV segments! It made its way the Supreme Court and he was ruled against, but only by a 5-4 split!

That's why I said that such protections will likely end up applying, sooner or later. The precedent for moving stuff from the private to public domain (in terms of protections of users) is quite clear and there's a willingness among the court to act on such, so this applying to things that provide free open access to far more people than any government can reach, and then try to act as their untouchable and unconstrained overlord by appealing to 'private property', is probably inevitable. Of course "inevitable" has no meaning. It could be 5 years from now, or 50.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...

by somenameforme

3/29/2025 at 3:25:27 PM

In case of a mall however it didn’t hold up:

> In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it.

A company towns per-se don’t exist anymore in US? There are developer owned neighborhoods though. Mixed zoned areas with everything owned by a corporate entity, so could apply there perhaps?

by rdtsc

3/29/2025 at 3:17:15 PM

> It can be both

It can and perhaps should, I agree. But whether it actually does, I am not sure.

by rdtsc

3/29/2025 at 5:09:20 AM

Wait so the 5th amendment protects diaries from snooping siblings?

by brookst

3/29/2025 at 3:30:26 PM

4th you meant?

by sejje

3/29/2025 at 8:44:37 PM

Yeah, 4th would have been better.

by brookst

3/29/2025 at 4:11:30 AM

> The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power.

The entire First Amendment is one sentence:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.

by mulmen

3/29/2025 at 4:30:13 AM

[flagged]

by hunter2_

3/29/2025 at 3:37:52 AM

It is a capitalism issue.

But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.

by MindBeams

3/29/2025 at 4:00:07 AM

If there's no government for the 1st Amendment to protect from, then there's no 1st Amendment.

by kmeisthax

3/29/2025 at 1:16:15 AM

If people these days were human—rather than erect animals—they’d boycott companies like this into bankruptcy. The eternal consoomer just lies down and takes it.

by hello_computer

3/29/2025 at 8:08:39 AM

I seem to recall that when conservatives were getting banned from social media (or any place else), the prevailing attitude was "it's a private company, and they don't owe you anything, so they can ban someone for any reason they want." Now when it's a sympathetic target suddenly nobody is saying that? People are even invoking the First Amendment, which was laughed at back then.

by Jiro

3/29/2025 at 4:49:20 PM

The difference is conservatives voices were always the ones getting the most exposure online. Their whining back then was purely political and completely unfounded. And now that they're in power and actively censoring people, it should be apparent to all how this constant appeal to free speech and the 1st amendment was deeply hypocritical.

by thrance

3/29/2025 at 11:52:33 AM

The difference is that conservatives generally get banned for being disrespectful and hateful. E.g. conservatives generally don't get banned for saying that they disagree with gay marriage, they get banned for using slurs, insulting people, etc.

by harimau777

3/29/2025 at 1:06:50 AM

Big fat warning that there is absolutely no proof of why they were banned, the title is very misleading.

by ranger_danger

3/29/2025 at 1:16:08 AM

Did you read the article? It clearly states what Mikyl Cordova wrote lol.

by arielsaldana

3/29/2025 at 8:21:22 AM

BTW did you read where that was a later edit?

by djmips

3/29/2025 at 1:31:56 AM

[flagged]

by ranger_danger

3/29/2025 at 1:49:30 AM

That's got to be the most tenuous argument I've ever seen - the most merchandisey item is a T-shirt.

by sadeshmukh

3/29/2025 at 2:45:01 PM

Maybe I should have been a lawyer.

by ranger_danger

3/29/2025 at 1:50:39 AM

So you’re thinking it’s even more petty than what the article said? Woah.

by mcphage