Talk:Stadium ban decision

Minimal COI

While insignificant, I have been taught by one of the people cited in the past, but I wouldn’t bet on him knowing my name. FortunateSons (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the German Federal Constitutional Court made a ruling on the permissibility of a nationwide 2-year stadium ban almost a decade after its end?

• Source: https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/bverfg-1bvr308009-bundesweite-stadionverbote-mittelbare-drittwirkung-grundrechte-hausrecht-dfb Das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) hat die Verfassungsbeschwerde eines mit einem bundesweiten Stadionverbot belegten Fußballfans als unbegründet zurückgewiesen (Beschl. v. 11.04.2018, Az. 1 BvR 3080/09). Die Verbote dürften aber mit Blick auf das Gleichheitsgebot nicht willkürlich festgesetzt werden und müssten auf einem sachlichen Grund beruhen, entschied der Erste Senat in einem am Freitag veröffentlichten Beschluss. Für ein Stadionverbot reiche allerdings schon die Sorge, dass von einer Person die Gefahr künftiger Störungen ausgehe. Nach einem Auswärtsspiel des FC Bayern München gegen den MSV Duisburg im Jahr 2006 kam es außerhalb des Stadions zu Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den Fangruppen. Die Polizei nahm daraufhin 50 Personen in Gewahrsam, unter ihnen der damals 16-jährige Beschwerdeführer. Gegen ihn wurde dann ein Verfahren wegen Landfriedensbruchs eingeleitet, das später wegen Geringfügigkeit eingestellt wurde. Nach der Einleitung des Ermittlungsverfahrens sprach der MSV Duisburg im Namen des Deutschen Fußballbundes (DFB) ein zweijähriges, bundesweites Stadionverbot gegen den 16-Jährigen aus. Gestützt wurde das Verbot auf die Stadion-Verbotsrichtlinien des DFB. Trotz der späteren Verfahrenseinstellung entschieden der MSV und der DFB ohne Anhörung des zur Münchener Ultra-Szene gehörenden Jugendlichen, das Verbot aufrecht zu erhalten.
• https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2018/04/rs20180411_1bvr308009.html (11. April 2018) “Mit Schreiben vom 18. April 2006 sprach die Beklagte daraufhin gegenüber dem Beschwerdeführer ein bundesweites Stadionverbot für die Dauer vom 18. April 2006 bis zum 30. Juni 2008 aus”

• ALT1: ... that a ruling on the permissibility of stadium bans by the German Federal Constitutional Court could obligate certain private actors to follow constitutional law? Source: Towfigh, Emanuel V.; Gleixner, Alexander (2022). Smartbook Grundrechte: ein hybrides Lehrbuch mit 67 Lernvideos [Smartbook Fundamental Rights: a hybrid textbook with 67 learning videos]. NomosStudium (in German) (1. Auflage ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-3-7489-1119-7. “Darüber hinaus beschäftigt sich das BVerfG erstmals mit der Wirkung des allgemeinen Gleichheitssatzes (Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG) im Privatrecht.39 Eine mittelbare Drittwirkung des allgemeinen Gleichheitssatzes ist vor allem mit Blick auf die im Privatrecht geltende Privatautonomie problematisch, die es gerade erlaubt, die Vertragspartner frei auszuwählen und grds. Kontraktionszwang unterbindet - was im Umkehrschluss als Freiheit zu diskriminieren interpretiert werden kann. Das BVerfG stellt daher ausdrücklich fest, dass der allgemeine Gleich-heitssatz kein objektives Verfassungsrecht enthält, wonach Rechtsverhältnisse zwischen Privaten prinzipiell gleichheitsgerecht auszugestalten seien. Auf den konkreten Fall gewendet: Die mit dem Stadionverbot einhergehende Ungleichbehandlung des Fans gegenüber denjenigen, die das Stadion besuchen dürfen, ist nicht schon per se verfassungswidrig. Die Gleichheitsbindung privater Akteure begründet das BVerfG erst in „spezifischen Konstellationen" (§ 3 Rn. 44 f.): Ein allgemeiner Grundsatz, wonach private Vertragsbeziehungen jeweils den Rechtfertigungsanforderungen des Gleichbehandlungsgebots unterlägen, folgt demgegenüber aus Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG auch im Wege der mittelbaren Drittwirkung nicht. [...] Gleichheitsrechtliche Anforderungen für das Verhältnis zwischen Privaten können sich aus Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG jedoch für spezifische Konstellationen erge-ben. Eine solche Konstellation liegt dem hier in Frage stehenden bundesweit gültigen Stadionverbot zugrunde. Maßgeblich für die mittelbare Drittwirkung des Gleichbehandlungsgebots ist dessen Charakter als einseitiger, auf das Hausrecht gestützter Ausschluss von Veranstaltungen, die aufgrund eigener Entscheidung der Veranstalter einem großen Publikum ohne Ansehen der Person geöffnet werden und der für die Betroffenen in erheblichem Umfang über die Teilnahme am gesellschaftlichen Leben entscheidet. Indem ein Privater eine solche Veranstaltung ins Werk setzt, erwächst ihm von Verfassungs wegen auch eine besondere rechtliche Verantwortung. Er darf seine hier aus dem Hausrecht - so wie in anderen Fällen möglicherweise aus einem Monopol oder aus struktureller Überlegenheit - resultierende Entscheidungsmacht nicht dazu nutzen, bestimmte Personen ohne sachlichen Grund von einem solchen Ereignis auszuschließen. Die Fachgerichte haben daher sicherzustellen, dass das Stadionverbot nicht willkürlich erlassen worden ist. Das BVerfG etabliert dabei Hürden aus der verwaltungsrechtlichen Dogmatik:41 Es bedarf eines sachlichen Grundes und einer Anhörung der jeweiligen Betroffenen. Das führt letztlich zu einer „situativ staatsgleichen Grundrechtsbindung privater Akteure".”
• Reviewed:
• Comment: I’m open to alternative hooks, as the case is somewhat complicated and other aspects may be more interesting to an international audience. Thank you!

Created by FortunateSons (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC).

• Comment: @FortunateSons: I think this needs a bit of copyediting:

• The Stadionverbots-Entscheidung (Beschl. v. 11.04.2018, Az. 1 BvR 3080/09)[1] (literally: Stadium-Ban-Decision, also known as the Stadionverbots-Beschluss) is a decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the German federal constitutional court, in which a football fan unsuccessfully attempted to have his ban from German stadiums to be found to be unlawful.

• Do you mean "a football fan unsuccessfully attempted to have his ban from German stadiums" rescinded or repealed? "To be found to be unlawful" doesn't really work. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• perhaps „retroactively declared to be unlawful“? FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• The court set a higher standard for banning a fan from all stadiums for alleged misconduct, declaring some applicability of mittelbare Drittwirkung in regards to procedural rights and equality to their treatment of fans.

• You will need to very briefly explain mittelbare Drittwirkung. For example you could do it like this: "The court set a higher standard for banning a fan from all stadiums for alleged misconduct, declaring some applicability of mittelbare Drittwirkung, a legal concept unique to European jurisprudence, in regards to procedural rights and equality to their treatment of fans." Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• You're right. But not necessarily for the hook, just in the article, right? Do we need a definition in the lead as well? FortunateSons (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't addressed the hooks yet. I'm not convinced the current hooks are that interesting. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note, the below sources translate mittelbare Drittwirkung as "the doctrine of the indirect horizontal effects of fundamental rights". Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nice catch. I added the translation, I think it’s probably best cited to the primary sources below, right? FortunateSons (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: @FortunateSons: I think we really need to focus on clearly describing the topic in English. I'm seeing a few English sources that do just that.[1] So, some questions. Should the English article title be in German or in English, such as "Stadium ban decision"? No strong feelings, but we should see what policy says. Also, what year did the decision take place, 2009? If so, say that in the first sentence. Finally, try to simplify the outcome. I see two English language sources that do just this.[2][3] There are likely more. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• WP:TRANSLITERATE seems to be dictate that we use the English title, to the best of my understanding. If you agree, I’m happy to move it. Regarding dates: the incident was in 2006, the ban lasted from 2006 to 2008, the decision was in 2018. Which date are you referring to? Thank you for the English sources, I missed those. :)FortunateSons (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• @FortunateSons: The date of the final decision should appear in the lead, as should a brief description of the incident and ban dates. If you feel comfortable moving the page, then feel free to do so. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, I will move the page. The date for the decision is already in the lead (as it is part of how the cases are cited, with DD/MM/YYYY), and I will add the year for the incident and ban (2006), or do we need the specific dates? In scientific secondary sources, they generally don’t go in depth beyond the year, if I remember correctly. FortunateSons (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do it however you want, but I don't see any dates in the lead in plain text, just in the case format, which isn't explicit to the general reader. Sometimes a bit of redundancy helps. Also, more dates and explanation might be needed per the above. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Added the years, and some additional context to the lead. Not sure on grammar/style, what do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• You nailed it! It's a huge improvement. Now, what are we going to do about the hooks? Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. I’m really not sure about the hooks. The link between football and social media or alternatively the duration of the ban compared to the duration of the legal process might be most interesting to someone with no connection to the subject, but I could be missing the forest for the trees here? FortunateSons (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: Why do you have Bundesverfassungsgericht in italics, but not Bundesgerichtshof? Same thing with Drittwirkung, which appears as Drittwirkung later on in the articlce. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for more eyes

• I agree that some other hooks may be more interesting... something like ALT2 ... that a German court's decision involving football stadiums may preclude Facebook from arbitrarily deleting content?

This of course comes with the caveat that I do not have access to the offline source in which the Facebook implication is noted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: While it's true that Münchener Anwalts Handbuch Verwaltungsrecht is offline in print form, and Münchener Anwalts Handbuch Verwaltungsrecht is behind a paywall (it says there's another way to access it, but I couldn't do it), it looks like one other source is online and available. Kühling (2024): "The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court could also be applied to participation in social networks such as Facebook, which have excluded a user. However, if the exclusion is due to an objective reason and was not arbitrary or irrelevant, nothing can be done to counteract the exclusion" ("Die Entscheidung des BVerfG könnte auch auf die Teilnahme an sozialen Netzwerken wie z.B. Facebook übertragen werden, die einen Nutzer ausgeschlossen haben. Wenn jedoch der Ausschluss auf einen sachlichen Grund zurückzuführen ist und nicht willkürlich oder sachfremd erfolgte, kann dem Ausschluss nichts entgegengesetzt werden") Is that enought to support your hook, or can you work with that and come up with a new one? Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Viriditas. I think that would be sufficient. I've added it to the end of the relevant sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Crisco 1492. I'm sorry to take up your time with this. I think we might have a better success rate with your hook if we just stick to the LTO source from the article.[4] This means modifying the hook such that we only focus on the user aspects, not the content. For some ideas, I will copy and past the source for you to see, and I think that will help you determine how to modify the hook. Note, this information is also already in the article. From the linked article: "According to the Berlin sports and media lawyer Robert Golz, the decision can also be applied to other situations in which a private individual - similar to a football club - uses its decision-making power resulting from a monopoly or structural superiority to exclude certain people without objective reason. According to the lawyer, this could be the case, for example, if clubs exclude certain media representatives from their press conferences because they have, for example, expressed criticism of the club in the past. In this case, the press representatives' professional freedom and freedom of the press would be at stake. The lawyer sees further consequences of the ruling: "The Federal Constitutional Court's decision could also be applied to participation in social networks such as Facebook, which have excluded a user. However, if the exclusion is due to an objective reason and was not arbitrary or irrelevant, nothing can be done to counteract the exclusion," Golz told LTO." For what it's worth, the original nominator was leaning towards using this as a hook, but didn't have time to do so. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• No worries, Viriditas. This is a good-looking article and deserves a chance. What about ALT3 ... that a German court's decision involving football stadiums may preclude Facebook from arbitrarily banning users? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• User:Crisco 1492, I think that's perfect and I want to pass it. One other thing I noticed is that the use of italics in the article is confusing. Sometimes they might be used to indicate non-English words, other times they might be used to indicate a proper name. Could you take a look? Other than that, I think we're done. If you don't see anything wrong with the italics and use of non-italics, that's fine, but I did want to have other eyes on it before I wrap this up. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Viriditas, I think I got it.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• This is perfect, thank you both! Apologies for the disappearance on my end, I got totally overwhelmed with my studies and personal life. FortunateSons (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Final review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Prefer ALT3, created by User:Crisco 1492. Original nominator previously discussed the potential of this kind of hook, but got too busy with school/work. Article is new and long enough, originally moved from draft to main space within the seven day period. QPQ not needed. Earwig shows no issues. Some sources in the article are accepted in good faith due to paywalls. Most of the others, particularly the hook itself, have been verified. Hook is short (112 chars), interesting and timely. For the sake of transparency, the original nominator was concerned that a hook like ALT3 would fall afoul of the sensationalism proscription in WP:DYKHOOK, but I don't believe it does. In the event that others disagree, my second choice would be ALT1.Article was new and long enough on 21 September when it was moved from draft to mainspace. I don't like the current hooks, partly because of the way they are written, and partly because I don't find them interesting per se, but they might be more interesting if they were rewritten. The nominator has shown that they acknowledge there are more interesting hooks to be had, particularly in terms of the legal ramifications of the decision on social media companies. I would encourage the nominator to work the kinks out and add more hooks to choose from to this nomination, or failing that, rewrite the current ones. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)