1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NCAA to Facebook users: First Amendment? Meh!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TigerVols, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Now of course I know that First Amendment rights apply only to government actions, but still -- not sure how the NCAA can enforce a ban on football fans' posting on high school recruits' Facebook pages.

  2. Freelance Hack

    Freelance Hack Active Member

    I'm so starting a "UK fans want John Wall" group right now.
  3. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Fuckabuncha NCAA
  4. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Somebody already did. That's part of what started this.
  5. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    So you know that the First Amendment applies only to government actions, and yet you still make it part of the thread title.
  6. Freelance Hack

    Freelance Hack Active Member

    I know. I'm just doing whatever I can to make sure Wall doesn't step foot on that campus.

    Anybody got a picture of an open Emery envelope?
  7. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    It is wrong for the NCAA to single out Facebook.

    What about the sexual predators trying to friend athletes via myspace?
  8. RecentAZgrad

    RecentAZgrad Active Member

    Wouldn't it be easier to try and keep potential recruits away from social networking sites?
  9. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    This story demonstrates why the Tarkanian case which held that the NCAA was not a state actor is flawed.

    Compare Tarkanian:

    The NCAA's investigation, enforcement proceedings, and consequent recommendations did not constitute state action on the theory that they resulted from a delegation of power by UNLV, because: UNLV delegated no power to the NCAA to take specific action against any University employee; UNLV and the NCAA acted as adversaries throughout the proceedings; the NCAA enjoyed no governmental powers to facilitate its investigation; and the NCAA did not-indeed, could not-directly discipline Tarkanian, but could only threaten additional sanctions against UNLV if the University chose not to suspend its coach. Furthermore, even assuming the truth of Tarkanian's argument that the power of the NCAA is so great that UNLV had no practical alternative but to comply with the Association's demands, it does not follow that the NCAA was therefore acting under color of state law. Pp. 461-466.

    which overruled Hennessy:

    On the surface it would appear that the activities of the NCAA, being a voluntary, non-profit, private association, are outside the scope of these provisions. Conceptually, however, the NCAA can be seen as composed of its constituent members, approximately half of which are, like the University of Alabama, public institutions endowed, in varying degrees, with the attributes of an instrumentality or agency of a state. See Hutchinson v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 47 Ala.App. 460, 256 So.2d 279 (1971); 1940 Code of Alabama, title 52, § 486, et seq. (Recomp. 1958). State participation in a nominally private activity can result in the characterization of that activity as "state action". Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961).

    In any event, the Fifth Circuit has concluded that the NCAA's activities are the equivalent of state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983, and the critical facts in that determination are no different now than they were in the case then being considered. Parish v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 506 F.2d 1028 (CA5 1975). Accord, Associated Students, Inc. v. N.C.A.A., 493 F.2d 1251 (CA9 1974). The practical effect of this holding is that Bylaw 12-1 is to be tested under the Fourteenth Amendment as if it were an enactment of a state legislature.

    and the Parish case (overruled by Tarkanian):

    We see no reason to enumerate again the contacts and the degree of participation of the various states, through their colleges and universities, with the NCAA. Suffice it to say that state-supported educational institutions and their members and officers play a substantial, although admittedly not pervasive, role in the NCAA's program.FN10 State participation in or support of nominally private activity is a well recognized basis for a finding of state action. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 1961, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45; Smith v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, 5 Cir. 1972, 462 F.2d 634. Moreover, we cannot ignore the states'- as well as the federal government's- traditional interest in all aspects of this country's educational system.FN11 Organized athletics play a large role in higher education, and improved means of transportation have made it possible for any college, no matter what its location, to compete athletically with other colleges throughout the country. Hence, meaningful regulation of this aspect of education is now beyond the effective reach of any one state. In a real sense, then, the NCAA by taking upon itself the role of coordinator and overseer of college athletics- in the interest both of the individual student and of the institution he attends- is performing a traditional governmental function.
  10. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    Oh no! Whatever shall we do?
  11. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    I've always assumed the point of a thread title was to get people to click -- and in your case, it worked. Thanks!
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page