There is an adage in the law that tough cases make bad law. That is so because cases that present close legal and common-sense calls necessitate razor-edge legal conclusions that are difficult to apply to other factual situations in other cases.

The First Amendment freedom- of-speech cases are almost always those kind of cases. The issue being raised in a Seattle sports dispute, that may become a legal case, is a pointed example of tough calls.

Last week at a New York Yankees-Mariners game in Seattle, fans wore T-shirts that said, “Yankees suck.” Seattle team officials told them such language violated the family atmosphere the Mariners wish to create for those coming to games. The wearers were told to wear the shirts inside out, take them off, or leave.

The fans have approached a lawyer to discuss the possibility of bringing a case for damages against the Mariners , probably based on a claim that it was their First Amendment right to wear the shirts.

The toughness of such a case is evident on the face of the issues. On the one hand, fans have a right to come and boo or cheer a team. The question is, how far can a fan go in making his feelings known?

Throwing items at players, fighting in stands, or going onto the field are all easy to prohibit, even if free speech is argued. Those are actions akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

Such restrictions are reasonable to prevent injury to others and to allow the event to go on. Additionally, there are other ways to vent feelings at a game, such as cheering or booing.

The wearing of messages on shirts or printed on one’s body, or the hanging or carrying of signs in the ballpark have created not so easily answerable issues concerning “rights of fans.”

Sports owners are their own worst enemies in this debate. Owners make millions of dollars off beer sales and advertising. Owners want drinking and attending games to be viewed as coexistent.

As the general rowdiness of sports crowds has grown, often because fans drink too much. So have the actions of some of those fans who want to taunt, swear and generally become the center of attention instead of being the fans.

Television adds to the demise of civility by showing the idiots who paint their bodies with slogans and signs, thus encouraging the next day’s fans to go one step further so they can get on TV.

Clubs condone the drinking and the fans it brings, but then finds the acts of such fans offensive.

Now comes the Seattle organization in an attempt to reverse the trend and actually promote civility in the seats. However, they wish to limit speech to do so and the issue becomes just what they can justifiably say no to.

There are tons of legal issues involved, but there are practical issues as well. Teams love “homers,” those who pronounce the home team can do no wrong, whether such people are broadcasting games or sitting in the seats.

Teams do and have removed signs that may be no more offensive than to be negative toward the team, its players or ownership. Do teams have a right to do that? Does it matter when the signs are directed at the opposing team?

What is offensive language? “Suck” has become a term so often used in society in referring to innumerable negative situations that one must ask if it is even an offensive word in the general public anymore. Can the Mariners decide that issue on their own?

There probably will be a legal dispute over all this, another tough case. Better we just listened to our mothers who said, “Just be nice.”

Old Town native Gary Thorne is an ESPN and NBC sportscaster.