||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IN DEFENSE OF TICKET SCALPING
DAVID HARSANYI, DENVER POST - We all know scalping is against the law -
so please don't do it - but have you ever wondered precisely why? It is,
most often, an innocuous deal. A victimless crime. Within Denver city
limits, a person is prohibited from selling tickets for a penny more
than the face value. If you're caught doing so, you face a misdemeanor
that can cost you up to $999 and one year in jail.
On Coors Field property, it's illegal to sell tickets even for face
value. Last week, Denver police confiscated 58 Colorado Rockies National
League Championship Series playoff tickets from a 23-year-old man. . .
Many people fear that shady individuals will corner the market on sports
and concert tickets, creating a monopoly and shaking down consumers for
unreasonable prices. You know, like Ticketmaster.
The Rockies, of course, have the right to sell limited tickets to each
consumer and safeguard against this sort of activity. But it's hard for
me to think of any other product in America that can't be turned around
and sold for a profit. . .
The rise of online message boards - in particular, Craigslist - makes
at-game ticket selling an unnecessary risk. There are so many Rockies
tickets available online, in fact, a consumer can afford to be picky. .
.
Obviously, there are other concerns regarding scalping, namely
counterfeit tickets. Thus, everyone is looking for "hard tickets."
In the end, I'm not sure why it's fair to allow monopolies to sell
tickets and not individuals. Turning a profit on your investment doesn't
sound like a crime to me. It sounds like America.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_7179405
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ASHCROFT, GONZALES, MUKASEY. . .
PROGRESS REPORT - The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Judge
Michael Mukasey's nomination as the nation's next Attorney General. . .
A "major focus" of the hearings will center around a secret 2005 Justice
Department memo endorsing "the harshest interrogation techniques ever
used by the CIA," despite a public statement by the Department in 2004
declaring that torture was "abhorrent."
Mukasey has already indicated some support for the Bush administration's
torture policies. In a September meeting with conservatives, Mukasey
reportedly said "he understood the need for the CIA to use some
'enhanced' interrogation techniques." In Oct. 2001, a Jordanian detainee
who "had been beaten in the federal detention center in Manhattan,
producing bruises that were hidden beneath his orange prison jumpsuit,"
came before Mukasey's court. The New York Times reported that Mukasey
seemed "little concerned," commenting, "As far as the claim that he was
beaten, I will tell you that he looks fine to me." As Marjorie Cohn of
the National Lawyers Guild points out, one question for Mukasey today
is, "Can you think of any circumstance under which it would be lawful to
torture a prisoner in US custody?"
Mukasey has urged Congress to "fix a strained and mismatched legal
system" that allowed the "FBI to detain, without charges, an estimated
70 people" after 9/11. All but one of those detained were Muslim, and at
least 28 of them were never charged with a crime. But as chief trial
judge in Manhattan at that time, Mukasey approved secret warrants and
sharply criticized a fellow U.S. District Court judge "who ruled that
warrants issued in the post-Sept. 11 roundup was an illegitimate use of
the law."
According to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Mukasey has indicated a
willigness to conduct an independent review of the Bush administration's
wiretapping program. But in the past, Mukasey has shown some support for
the Bush administration's spying policies. For example, in 2000, he said
that the nation's choice "is either to have no surveillance at all or to
have totally uncontrolled surveillance...the existing system is a
compromise that Congress was forced to make." In 2004, he "dismissed
fears of the government's ability to subpoena tangible things like
business records." Mukasey wrote that "the hidden message in the
structure of the Constitution is that the government it establishes is
entitled...to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt." He
also endorsed the Patriot Act, noting that its "awkward name" may "very
well be the worst thing about the statute."
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IN DEFENSE OF TICKET SCALPING
DAVID HARSANYI, DENVER POST - We all know scalping is against the law -
so please don't do it - but have you ever wondered precisely why? It is,
most often, an innocuous deal. A victimless crime. Within Denver city
limits, a person is prohibited from selling tickets for a penny more
than the face value. If you're caught doing so, you face a misdemeanor
that can cost you up to $999 and one year in jail.
On Coors Field property, it's illegal to sell tickets even for face
value. Last week, Denver police confiscated 58 Colorado Rockies National
League Championship Series playoff tickets from a 23-year-old man. . .
Many people fear that shady individuals will corner the market on sports
and concert tickets, creating a monopoly and shaking down consumers for
unreasonable prices. You know, like Ticketmaster.
The Rockies, of course, have the right to sell limited tickets to each
consumer and safeguard against this sort of activity. But it's hard for
me to think of any other product in America that can't be turned around
and sold for a profit. . .
The rise of online message boards - in particular, Craigslist - makes
at-game ticket selling an unnecessary risk. There are so many Rockies
tickets available online, in fact, a consumer can afford to be picky. .
.
Obviously, there are other concerns regarding scalping, namely
counterfeit tickets. Thus, everyone is looking for "hard tickets."
In the end, I'm not sure why it's fair to allow monopolies to sell
tickets and not individuals. Turning a profit on your investment doesn't
sound like a crime to me. It sounds like America.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_7179405
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ASHCROFT, GONZALES, MUKASEY. . .
PROGRESS REPORT - The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Judge
Michael Mukasey's nomination as the nation's next Attorney General. . .
A "major focus" of the hearings will center around a secret 2005 Justice
Department memo endorsing "the harshest interrogation techniques ever
used by the CIA," despite a public statement by the Department in 2004
declaring that torture was "abhorrent."
Mukasey has already indicated some support for the Bush administration's
torture policies. In a September meeting with conservatives, Mukasey
reportedly said "he understood the need for the CIA to use some
'enhanced' interrogation techniques." In Oct. 2001, a Jordanian detainee
who "had been beaten in the federal detention center in Manhattan,
producing bruises that were hidden beneath his orange prison jumpsuit,"
came before Mukasey's court. The New York Times reported that Mukasey
seemed "little concerned," commenting, "As far as the claim that he was
beaten, I will tell you that he looks fine to me." As Marjorie Cohn of
the National Lawyers Guild points out, one question for Mukasey today
is, "Can you think of any circumstance under which it would be lawful to
torture a prisoner in US custody?"
Mukasey has urged Congress to "fix a strained and mismatched legal
system" that allowed the "FBI to detain, without charges, an estimated
70 people" after 9/11. All but one of those detained were Muslim, and at
least 28 of them were never charged with a crime. But as chief trial
judge in Manhattan at that time, Mukasey approved secret warrants and
sharply criticized a fellow U.S. District Court judge "who ruled that
warrants issued in the post-Sept. 11 roundup was an illegitimate use of
the law."
According to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Mukasey has indicated a
willigness to conduct an independent review of the Bush administration's
wiretapping program. But in the past, Mukasey has shown some support for
the Bush administration's spying policies. For example, in 2000, he said
that the nation's choice "is either to have no surveillance at all or to
have totally uncontrolled surveillance...the existing system is a
compromise that Congress was forced to make." In 2004, he "dismissed
fears of the government's ability to subpoena tangible things like
business records." Mukasey wrote that "the hidden message in the
structure of the Constitution is that the government it establishes is
entitled...to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt." He
also endorsed the Patriot Act, noting that its "awkward name" may "very
well be the worst thing about the statute."
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment