Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 3, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

SUPER BIPARTISANSHIP....Check this out. Megachurches across the nation are being forced to cancel their Super Bowl parties:

Farmland Friends [in Indiana] on Friday joined churches nationwide in abruptly canceling its Super Bowl party for fear of violating a federal copyright law that prohibits public venues from showing NFL games on big-screen TVs.

....The law has been widely ignored for years....This year, however, a celebration sponsored by Falls Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis caught the attention of a National Football League attorney, Rachel L. Margolies.

....The intent of the law, which dates to the 1960s, is to protect the NFL's television ratings by preventing large crowds from gathering to watch games in public places -- where their viewing habits aren't measured by the Nielsen ratings. (The ratings only measure viewership at home.) Sports bars and other businesses that rely on televised sports to draw patrons are exempt.

Under NFL guidelines -- and federal law -- churches, schools and other public venues can hold football-viewing parties only if they use a single, living-room-size TV, no bigger than 55 inches.

I smell a chance for some sweet, sweet bipartisan action here! We on the left (along with our libertarian friends, of course) oppose the massive overreach of intellectual property law that gives big business the right to do stuff like this. Likewise, our colleagues on the right would get big ups from their base if (mostly conservative) megachurches were once again free of the NFL/Uncle Sam jackboot. So how about it? Who's in favor of the Obama-Brownback Freedom to Be a Fan Act of 2007?

Kevin Drum 2:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (92)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

This is too delicious for bipartisanship.

Why can't the NFL get the Nielsen ratings it deserves for providing quality sports entertainment to these congregations anyway? What are these megachurches trying to get away with? I think they're angling to buy Superbowl commercials and are trying to jack the price down!

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on February 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

How about the Freedom For Football Fans Act? The FFFFAct. Now that's truth.

Posted by: Grassroots not Cubicle on February 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

I think the First Amendment supersedes the copyright law. These people are peaceably assembling to freely exercise their religion, which just happens to involve the worshipping of football.

Posted by: josef on February 3, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

No wonder people don't like lawyers. This is ridiculous. And to complicate things further, having someone named Rachel Margolies "ordering" the chuch to cancel their Super Bowl Party isn't going to help intra-culteral relations.

Posted by: oofda on February 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin...

Okay, that's all I got. I can't do the level of ignorant required to parody egbert.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

That has to be one of the stupidest laws I have ever heard of.

To protect Nilsen ratings??? Like, "Whereas the system for estimating how many people watch sucks, be it resolved that its illegal for more than x people to watch a single television in order to promote the general welfare."

Posted by: jefff on February 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

And like ratings are a concern for the Super Bowl! Jesus H. Christ! What else is on in that timeslot? LouAnn Platter's Manger Babies?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 3, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think separation of our Most Secular Holiday from priests should be codified in the constitution.

Posted by: Brojo on February 3, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the sacred Nielsens. But what about the latest version of Janet Jackson's boob? Aren't the preachers afraid of defiling their temples?

Posted by: Kenji on February 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Aren't the preachers afraid of defiling their temples?

Just wait til Prince whips it out.

Posted by: Legs on February 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the sacred Nielsens. But what about the latest version of Janet Jackson's boob? Aren't the preachers afraid of defiling their temples?
Posted by: Kenji

Except for haggert ... who was wishing for a boy band ... maybe some timberlake boob.

Posted by: Nads on February 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ah but Kevin, the libertatians will not be behind it. Taking away corporate freedom in order to increase individuals' freedom? Never!

Posted by: JWill on February 3, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

That was supposed to say libertarians, not libertatians. Bad eyesight didn't catch the mistake soon enough...

Posted by: JWill on February 3, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

The Napster fallacy:

"In order to maximize our audience, we're going to piss them off."

Because, of course, having gotten assaulted by our lawyers, they're going to go home and watch it properly.

The Superbowl ain't crack cocaine, guys

Posted by: pbg on February 3, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, Go ahead and joke about this, liberals.Two of the greatest cultural forces in our nation are in conflict, and I don't see what's funny.

Posted by: Al on February 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Are they serving free beer and pizza?

If so, I'm getting religion for the day (well, maybe just for the afternoon and early evening hours) and attending church, or whatever they call it nowadays.

Fear not, though, I'll be o.k. Monday morning.

Posted by: bert on February 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Since this is something that the megachurch folks want, but that the rest of us couldn't give a shit about, maybe there's something we lefties can get in the bargain. Maybe reducing the maximum term of copyright to threescore years and ten?

Posted by: RT on February 3, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Al, are you in iraq?

Had not heard from you lately.

Enjoy the superbowl parties in Basra, I mean you support the war so much I just assumed you joined up once you heard recruitment numbers have been down.

Posted by: me on February 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

The NFL shows their true crass, commercial, screw-the-fans colors. The fundies behave like the sheep they are. So why shouldn't I be enjoying my little moment of schadenfreude?

Posted by: bicmon on February 3, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Copywrong is waaaaaaaaaay out of control. We need a copyRIGHT law good for maybe 5 years, and another 5 if something is revised version of the original (max of 10).

And a MUCH broader definition of fair use.

Just imagine if the Catholic church in the middle ages copyrighted everything they had in their possession in the monasteries. There likely wouldn't have been a renaissance and bookmaking with movable type would have been thwarted or stillborn.

Greedy fuckers!

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on February 3, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of megachurches:

The Passion of Mary Cheney

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on February 3, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't see what's funny."

And that, my fellow sentient beings, is precisely what will be inscribed on Al's tombstone.

Jwill, erhaps we should go with Libertatians from now on. Their idea of liberty is certainly full of hesitations and limitations—on every goddam thing besides taxation!

Posted by: Kenji on February 3, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

All they gotta do is serve booze & what's to say they're not a one-day-a-year sports bar?

Some of them serve booze once a week anyway. They may not even need liquor licenses.

Posted by: Dave of Maryland on February 3, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Talk about a relic of the past. I'm sure the NFL would be bankrupted if the missed Nielsen ratings forced the networks to charge $2m for a 30-second ad instead of $2.1m.

Or perhaps it's just that their lawyers have far too much free time on their hands.

(Make it the Obama-Lugar Act, though.)

Posted by: ahem on February 3, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Jesus would have approved of Super Bowl Sunday: "Well, I guess it keeps 'em in church. . ."

Posted by: RSA on February 3, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not a Nielsen household, nor is anyone I know. (A friend of mine was for a summer - he moved in with a guy who was one - but that was more than 15 years ago)

Why should I be punished for something to which I have *absolutely* no connection?

The church should have its party, but ask that those anonymous Nielsen households stay home to appease the NFL.

Right on, Kevin!

Posted by: Jim C. on February 3, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

"We on the left.... oppose the massive overreach of intellectual property law that gives big business the right to do stuff like this."

Then why do you vote for Democrats?

Posted by: digamma on February 3, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, Go ahead and joke about this, liberals.Two of the greatest cultural forces in our nation are in conflict, and I don't see what's funny.

Hey good one Al, I actually laughed at this. You're right, we're talking about the two sacred things that Americans hold dear in their hearts. Church and football. Not necessarily in that order.

Posted by: AnotherBruce on February 3, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

As my Telecomm law professor used to say, our telecommuncations regime is based on the founding principle that you cannot touch America's inalienable right to watch the Superbowl on TV for free. The NFL may have just opened a can of worms . . . .

Posted by: Mike on February 3, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Supposedly, Prince has become a Born Again Christian, and will not perform some of his racier songs.

Posted by: nikkolai on February 3, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

The NFL may have just opened a can of worms . . . .

Oh, it considers it an inalienable right to force crappy beer (and beer ads) down the throats of Superbowl audiences.

Posted by: ahem on February 3, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Umm, no.

That money is for the poor. Not for the chips.

but, yes, awesome idea.

Posted by: mdhåtter on February 3, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Down with the NFL!

Posted by: forsythe on February 3, 2007 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

NFL Commissioner on Monday: "Yes, I understand that the ratings for the Super Bowl were down to 2.4 this year. But that didn't count the 100,000,000 people watching at megachurches, hoping for a Hail Mary pass."

Posted by: Jim Bartle on February 3, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Prince actually became a Jehovah's Witness and really does go around knocking on doors. That's got to be a treat when you open up and see Prince.People have to think "Did Halloween come early?"

Posted by: R.L. on February 3, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately many libertarians would better be described as "propertarians", as they put property rights ahead of all other rights. Those folks have no problem, it seems, with copyright overreach.

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Umm Al is a parody troll, and on rare occcasions has publicly admitted it. Everything he posts is intended as a parody of the far right. This does not stop him from being a troll; as with non-parody trolls response to him often detract from the conversation.

One problem is that it is really hard to exaggerate the positions of the far right, and Al does not actually manage to go beyond actual right wing positions very often. In other words, it is more of an impression than a parody these days; maybe Al needs to get a second joke, before he becomes the Rich Little of - well - really a pretty small number of blogs.

Posted by: Gar Lipow on February 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Why do you begrudge people from making a living.

The NFL owners own productive assets, and should be able to realize maximal returns to those assets. Ditto for the players. You might not like to hear it, but greed is good. That's why this country is the strongest in the world.

That said, are the megachurches truly hurting from this? Is this their complaint, or yours? Are you just trying to stir up trouble? They probably realize that the NFL needs to make money.

If they do have a problem with it, then perhaps we can make a loophold that allows megachurches to host these parties. Otherwise, where does it stop? Do you want to drive hardworking enterpernereal sports bars out of business? How would your proposal effect them?

Posted by: egbert on February 3, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Too bad Richard Dawkins cant copyright the bible and take it out of circulation

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on February 3, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Much ado about nothing. The 55 inch TV regulation is kinda dumb, but the focus is not on churches. (From the article That's why the NFL denied a recent request from the Chicago Park District to broadcast the game at Soldier Field. It's why the league blocked the New England Aquarium from showing the AFC Championship game on its Imax screen in 2004. And it's why the league has in the past sent investigators to prowl casinos in Detroit, Las Vegas and even Biloxi, Miss., looking for suspiciously large screens.) And the reason that this all hit the news was because the NFL, gasp, objected to other groups charging admission to watch NFL games.

So what is this proposed law you suggest? Is it going to be limited to churches and other religious organizations? Is it just gonna override the large screen TV part of the rule or do you want to allow the owners of the RCA Dome in Indy the ability to charge $30 each to 50,0000 people to watch the game on the big screens in there?

If you raelly want to complain about the NFL abusing its power, lets talk about the exclusive rights deal they signed (and extended) with DirectTV for the Sunday Package. There is no way to justify that decision as an attempt to increase visibility or protect your product. That was a straight money grab (something the MLB is considering and which could result in the revocation of their anti trust exemption if they go ahead with it)

Posted by: MattR on February 3, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, megachurches provide a useful social service.

Posted by: emjayay on February 3, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Again with the libertarian/libertatian bashing.

Just for the record, we support anyone having as big a TV as they can get, grabbing any signal they can pull out of the air, inviting as many people as they like, and eating as much as they want while watching it. And of course brandishing guns and drugs at the same time.

Posted by: eeyn524 on February 3, 2007 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's long-standing policy is to "ban mass out-of home viewing of the Super Bowl."
My reading on the subject shows an issue with copyright holders preventing broadcasts on tv screens wider than 55 inches--roundly considered an antiquated thing nowadays.
There also seems to be an issue with protecting the NFL's Super Bowl brand name.

Jenna Karadbil, a Las Vegas attorney specializing in entertainment law and intellectual property, discussing similar issues in casino land, claimed "The biggest problem they have is hotels making money off something they broadcast for free."

Gees--how much money would be made at that church!

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

"The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.
"While this may be a noble message," NFL assistant counsel Rachel L. Margolies wrote in a follow-up e-mail, "we are consistent in refusing the use of our game broadcasts in connection with events that promote a message, no matter the content."
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/LOCAL/702010431/

I say: Good for the NFL.


Posted by: jeffs on February 3, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure Jesus would be all in favor of large, steroid-enhanced men crashing into each other repeatedly for the entertainment of the masses.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Buck wrote, Unfortunately many libertarians would better be described as "propertarians", as they put property rights ahead of all other rights. Those folks have no problem, it seems, with copyright overreach.

Correct.

Though let's get the political economy stuff straight.

If a libertarian says that people should enjoy the fruit of their labor, then that's a good thing.

If a libertarian says that people should enjoy the collecting of economic rents, then that's a bad thing.

So-called "intellectual property" is all about collecting economic rents.

Of course, as far as rents are concerned, the biggest grandaddy of them all is land rent.

Here are some excellent pages by real libertarians, who understand that rent collection is a bad thing, from the standpoint of both liberty and efficiency:
* Are you a real libertarian or a Royal libertarian?
*
A Geolibertarian FAQ

The other so-called libertarians are just essentially feudalists.

Posted by: liberal on February 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Americans go watch a football game in church???

God, you guys are weird.

Posted by: terry k on February 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

egbert wrote, The NFL owners own productive assets, and should be able to realize maximal returns to those assets.

I guess you don't know much about public financing of stadiums, or monopoly rent.

Posted by: liberal on February 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Al is right. Everyone knows football is Jesus's favorite sport. It's a tragedy that Christians are being deprived of the right to watch the Superbowl in the House of God. It's just like you liberals to gloat over such a thing. Why do hate America?

Posted by: JHM on February 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

From consider wisely always: Gees--how much money would be made at that church!

Let's say that the church makes $1000 and it uses that money for good works. I have no problem with that, you have no problem with that, and most likely the NFL has no problem with that. Unfortunately, by allowing that church to do that, the NFL has just opened the door for any other group that wants to use the Super Bowl to make money - could be just some guy or company looking to make a buck, could be the KKK, who knows.

Posted by: MattR on February 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, yes, their are "libertarians" who would be on board. Just like there are "conservatives" like Andrew Sullivan who are against torture.

But the second a bill gets introduced that involves the Federal government telling businesses what they can and cannot do with their own property, the people at CATO all have to pop a few blood pressure pills...

Posted by: JWill on February 3, 2007 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

I guess you don't know much about public financing of stadiums, or monopoly rent.
Posted by: liberal on February 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

I just dont get this. So what that the stadium where the game is performed is publicly finanaced. If there was a concert in that stadium, would the performing artist lose the right to maximize profits from that performance? Would those rights be different in a privately owned arena.

If I am not mistaken, the two sides have a contract that determines who has rights to what (usually the venue retains minimal rights for promotional purposes). I don't see how the NFL would be any different.

Posted by: MattR on February 3, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Why do you begrudge people from making a living."

This is the most asinine statement, in relation to the NFL, that I have seen in a long time.

30k per annum is "making a living". We are NOT talking about "making a living" here.

This Ferengi culture of ours sickens me no end.

Posted by: Apprentice to Darth Holden on February 3, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

We wouldn't need legislation; we could do it with regulations. This seems like a market failure to me, in that the problem is that Nielson doesn't include churches in its ratings sources. This is exactly the kind of market failure Bush's recent executive order said was the sole reason for issuing new regulations. The fact that churches would be the primary beneficiaries would be a plus for Bush.

Posted by: anandine on February 3, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

I can only imagine how the Fosterites are going to react to this.

Posted by: popomo on February 3, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

So who's playing?

Posted by: owlbear1 on February 3, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, I've been hearing this story since Tuesday or so here in metro-Indianapolis. I thought for sure that this went on every year but that it was just always a local story.

Yes, the NFL is greedy. Is anyone surprised?

Go Colts!

Posted by: DMC on February 3, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so whatever I say below does not constitute legal advice.

That being said, I worked for ASCAP for 20 years and one of the biggest black eyes we received in protecting our members' copyrights was when we went after the Girl Scouts.

If the NFL were to initiate a suit for infringement against say, some Congressmen's church, they would have a shitstorm of problems and it would probably be more headaches than benefits.

The 55" inch limitation is probably similar to the rules established by the "Aiken's Chicken" decision which essentially led to exempting retail locations using music over speakers with the limitation that it has to be a single receiving apparatus of a type typically found in homes.

Posted by: Randy Paul on February 3, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Banning churches, TV, football and Al would greatly improve the quality of life in America. I'll back any Presidential candidate who proposes it.

Posted by: fyreflye on February 3, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Damn the Man. I don't care for nosy, fundie social tyrants, but hey they should be able to have a little Superbowl fellowship after flopping on floor and babbling in tongues to praise Jeeeezuz! Besides, if they are doing that then they are not out pestering us heathens. Looks like a win/win to me.

Posted by: j swift on February 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

[If you oppose stuff like this] Then why do you vote for Democrats?

Remind me again - which party sponsored the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act"?

Posted by: Aaron on February 3, 2007 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans would never sign onto a bill that conflicts with corporate interests, and dems aren't likely to act against any corporation as large and lucrative as the NFL.

Posted by: A different Matt on February 3, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

I was going to watch the Superbowl this year; now I won't. The hell with the NFL.

Posted by: Mike on February 3, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm all for it. I may not be a fan of megachurches, but if they want to watch the game together, why the heck shouldn't they?

More than that, I think the underlying issue is kind of stupid. The only value to Nielsen ratings is if they accurately reflect viewing size, and if their methods aren't measuring that, they should change their methods. I'd think advertisers would care more about the actual number of viewers than some inaccurate industry metric.

Posted by: Royko on February 3, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm for giving football fans the biggest venues they can build, trucks of free beer, free lapdances, free methamphetamines, and free loaded guns. Have fun!

Posted by: luci on February 3, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

The Bears will kick the white trash Indianan asses!

Posted by: Janeane The Acerbic Goblin on February 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

Its insane that a law was passed that restricted people's rights in order to make some company's job easier in the first place.

So - I've just come up with a business model, but it won't work unless a law is passed that will impose a new restriction on people's rights. Where do I go to get it passed? I need my money!

Posted by: craig on February 3, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

There are thousands of churches that are going to be doing this, right? Some have screens bigger than 55", and some adhere to the legal requirement, right? So what's the NFL going to do, send thousands of agents to all the churches during the game to enforce their point of view? All the churchies have to do is cover their windows and speak softly to avoid detection; that's how their grandparents went drinking during Prohibition.

You can't raid churches anyway, can you? Don't scofflaws have the right of sanctuary in churches as long as they are not dangerous?

Posted by: spider on February 3, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Sports bars and other businesses that rely on televised sports to draw patrons are exempt.

I reckon that's the motive: commercial interests that want to drive the churchies to drink and eat in public on Sunday afternoon. The commercial interests probably make big cash campaign contributions and donate free beer and pizza. No campaign can afford to offend them.

Posted by: spider on February 3, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm for anything that gets people out of church.
Go home and watch your StuporBowl...it's not like the christians are out there saving the world every week.


After all, religon is the only known communicable mental illness.

Posted by: KerouacZac on February 3, 2007 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

OK

What if they cancel the super bowl party and have a pot luck social instead? And what if somebody who is not an officer of the church turns on the television? Is it illegal for the church official to neglect to turn it off? I can't believe that they would be convicted by a jury of their peers.

Would any devout Christians treat this issue with more respect than they treat the speed limit laws? Or Jews, or Hindus, or Muslims?

Posted by: spider on February 3, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

After all, religon is the only known communicable mental illness.

Whereas being an asshole is entirely self inflicted.

Posted by: Mike on February 3, 2007 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing like getting excited about the real issues is there? Electrons deify one razorblade into a mountain range.

Posted by: 4e.e. on February 3, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

spider: Don't scofflaws have the right of sanctuary in churches as long as they are not dangerous?

Only in the movies.

Posted by: anandine on February 3, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

lenses extend unwish through curving wherewhen til unwish returns on its unself


listen, there's a hell of a good universe next door. Let's go!


shucks, that's all I can remember. maybe by game time tomorrow I'll have it all back.

Posted by: spider on February 3, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

How about cancelling football completely until the U.S. has not been at war for 20 consecutive years. Once we go for 20 years without being at war, then we can have football again.

Loser country.

Posted by: Douglas Watts on February 4, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Sure, Go ahead and joke about this, liberals.Two of the greatest cultural forces in our nation are in conflict, and I don't see what's funny.Posted by: Al on February 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK
---

Easy. In Al's diseased planarian nervous cortex, the Stupor Bowl is as close as he gets to a religion ... except for shouting racial slurs when he's drunk, of course.

Posted by: Douglas Watts on February 4, 2007 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

You know, if JWill cared as much about saying things at least vaguely rooted in reality as he appears to about taking cheap shots at libertarians, he might at least have checked whether Cato had any published positions on stuff like DMCA and copyright overreach before making embarrassing predictions. It's a crazy notion, I know: Seeing if someone has already said not-X before you assert they'd say X.

Posted by: Julian Sanchez on February 4, 2007 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

I'm going to commit the last great act of cultural defiance: I'm going to follow the Super Bowl on radio.

Posted by: Vincent on February 4, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

What's wrong with using three or four 55 inch screens? The bar - make that the philanthropic organization - where I'll watch the game has a dozen or more screens, all withing that limit. The picture fidelity is better on smaller screens, anyway.

Posted by: Trashhauler on February 4, 2007 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

Let them watch pornography.

Posted by: BroD on February 4, 2007 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK

I wish they would show the superbowl at that church. I'd laugh my ass off if the no fun league sued a church.

Posted by: Gandalf on February 4, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, the left actually in support of evangelicals.

I am getting my affairs in order.

Posted by: Jay on February 4, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Prince to do halftime show with a pair of Mitt Romney Mormon underwear(tm) on his head inside out...

Posted by: Mr.Murder on February 4, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Further reading shows that if the church had not advertised it, it could have had the super bowl party? Had it been low keyed about it?? Capitalizing on the brand known as super bowl seems to be a big issue with the NFL.
Ok to celebrate and view it at bars, though--regardless of advance publicity about it.

Kind of reminds me of how the state wants to limit our exposure to second hand cigarette smoke yet says it is ok to smoke at will and in excess as one wills at bars and other drinking establishments.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 4, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

This is just very shortsighted thinking by the NFL. A much better policy would be to sell licenses to groups wanting to show games in large venues.

For example, during the soccer World Cups, matches are shown on huge TV screen in public places in the host countries so that all the people who were not able to get tickets can watch the matches together. Does this cost the World Cup some $$$? Yes. But it is also a great experience.

Can you imagine how much more fun it would be if 70,000 Colts fans could gather to watch the game at the RCA Dome or 20,000 Bears fans could get together to watch the game at the United Center?

Posted by: mfw13 on February 4, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

As Ricky Bobby said, maybe the Baby Jesus can use his Baby Jesus powers to fix this.

That, or I am sure they can find a NASCAR race on somewhere. Maybe spend some time scouting a church location that isn't next to a Wal Mart, or part of the Wal Mart.

Posted by: Ten in Tenn on February 4, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

The First Amendment clearly places a wall between church and football.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on February 4, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hope you folks hash this out amongst yourselves. I'm heading for Black's Beach and the nude volleybal tournament. Bet it'll be way more entertaining than anything the kulturmeisters can provide.

Posted by: Caslon on February 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm heading for Black's Beach and the nude volleybal tournament. Bet it'll be way more entertaining than anything the kulturmeisters can provide."

Ohh, you've never seen the nude volleyball at Black's before have you. Entertaining? Not usually.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw on February 5, 2007 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

Pastor or not i would have told her to kiss my ass! More people need to grow some balls and put people like Rachel back into their corner with the rats!

Posted by: Greg on February 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK
So what is this proposed law you suggest?

How about a blanket recognition that when a work is broadcast on the public airwaves, anyone can legally receive and display it in realtime, and can legally charge admission to the venue in which their receiver is located, regardless of what kind or size of receiver it is.

If the NFL wants to control the venues in which Superbowl video is viewed live, it can, of course, arrange to distribute the video private rather than via the public airwaves.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly