Russell Beckham argues that the Bears violated his First Amendment rights by preventing him from walking the sidelines while wearing Packers colors during a pregame event for season-ticket holders in 2016. Beckham, who represents himself in the lawsuit, has survived a preliminary effort by the Bears to have the case thrown out of court.

To ultimately win, Beckham may need to show that the Chicago Park District, which owns and operates Soldier Field, had a role in the team’s decision to prevent Beckham from wearing Packers gear on the sidelines. Which means that NFL players may need to show that local stadium authorities had a role in the rule that requires players to stand for the anthem.

Or maybe not. In Grimm’s article, one legal expert compares the situation to hosting a private birthday party in a public park. NFL games represent a private business endeavor that plays out in a public arena that anyone who pays the appropriate fee may attend. A plausible argument could be made that the close relationship between NFL teams and the publicly-owned stadiums transforms everything about the situation into a public event.

Ultimately, an anthem-based fight would play out in every publicly-funded stadium, with careful inspection of the leases needed to determine whether there may be any plausible basis for arguing that private employers cannot infringe upon First Amendment rights in an inherently public setting. Beckham’s existing lawsuit, if the NFLPA were to join it, could provide the test case.

should be interesting .... https://www.yahoo.com/sports/packers-fan-lawsuit-against-bears-005333433.html

If this really IS an argument based on claiming impingement of First Amendment rights, I can't imagine him winning. The "it's a public venue" argument is meaningless, because EVERYTHING is "public" that isn't happening behind closed doors and blocked windows.

Private businesses have always been allowed to limit speech of employees and of guests who are on their premises.

Besides, this isn't a case where the GOVERNMENT is limiting speech, it's a case where a PRIVATE BUSINESS is doing so. The fact that something is PUBLIC, doesn't cause it to be a GOVERNMENT function.

I think a lot of these players have forgotten they work for someone else. They seem to be more concerned with causing conflict that doing their job.

I think a lot of these players have forgotten they work for someone else. They seem to be more concerned with causing conflict that doing their job.

The problem with the Russell Beckham case is, well beside that he is an idiot, is people like him that twists the U.S.Constitution for his own purposes.

Nowhere in the Constitution even addresses this, if Congress made it a law that prohibit this then okay , but since they didn't how does it violate their first amendment right?

If he is a season ticket holder as he claims then he should have read the fine print, most teams have a rule opposing wearing the opposition team gear.

And from what Ive read this idiot has season tickets to both Bears and Packers team.

He must have a lot of money to be a season ticket holder for two teams, lots of money but no brains.

It maybe a public area but the team has rules, just like you McDonalds and other places have rules about No shirt, no shoes no service.

Its pretty simple.

I hope the Bears Organization wins and revokes his season pass ( legally).

I would think they would go to schools forcing kids/teachers to wear uniforms, or change their clothes when they're wearing something "offensive" or "distracting."

Schools tend to be a semi private business.
Private land, public funding, or public land, private funding, or some combination.

Teachers can't really wear bikini's to school.
Some get fired for posting semi nude drunken pictures of themselves on their personal social media websites.