Privately owned stadiums are at liberty to decide whether or not to host specific events or speakers.
Posted by Behind the Bastards, Checked
- Sources
- 4 support3 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 60%
Behind the BastardsOct 3, 2026
Sources consistently state that the First Amendment restrains government, not private owners, so a privately owned stadium or private event organizer generally may decide whether to host an event or speaker.
What was said
… Yeah, and so it's, you know, however offensive Robert Kraft or anyone else might find solidarity with Palestine to be, it is not speech of a kind that is exempted from the protections of the First Amendment. So, you know, if, again, if there's a private event company or a privately owned stadium that says we don't want to have more play, they're at liberty to do that, right? They can make that decision. Yeah, what we can't have, or at least what deserves interrogation, what deserves a serious inquiry, is a publicly owned, government-run entity shutting down speech at the behest of a wealthy, powerful individual, not on the basis of needing to impose a …
Behind the Bastards · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The DMLP and GovFacts sources say the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property the owner controls, and that a private organizer has First Amendment obligations only if it is a government actor.[4][5]
Supports. Legal scholarship notes that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not protect citizens from private entities' actions, and that most professional clubs are private entities.[1]
Supports. RCFP states that private entities such as professional sports franchises have greater liberty to restrict access, since constitutional guarantees guard against governmental intrusion.[6]
Context. Sources identify exceptions: when the government compels or jointly acts with a private entity, or when the event is on public land or taxpayer-funded, state-action arguments can apply, and the GBH/FIRE piece distinguishes government-owned venues, which must comply with the First Amendment.[2][3][7]
Context. The claim generalizes the post's specific scenario to all privately owned stadiums and speakers. The post's own framing matches the general principle, so the extraction is graded normally.
Sources
7 sources: 3 primary, 4 not rated
- 1Silencing the Crowd: Regulating Free Speech in Professional Sports Facilitiesscholarship.law.marquette.edu · primary source · cited for: supports
- 2Real-Time Sports Data and the First Amendmentdigitalcommons.law.uw.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 3[PDF] Free Expression in Private Stadia - UC Law SF Scholarship Repositoryrepository.uclawsf.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 4Free Speech on Government Property: Understanding Forums and ...govfacts.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5Entering the Property of Othersdmlp.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 6Organizers limit access to sporting eventsrcfp.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 7Did Macklemore's ouster violate the First Amendment? One ...wgbh.org · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Publicly owned stadiums are leasing decisional authority to private third-party companies that are not subject to First Amendment constraints.Mixed
- Of the seven stadium venues that objected to Macklemore's inclusion, five are publicly owned by a city, county, or state.True
- The stadiums in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Tampa, Indianapolis, and Arlington, Texas are owned by public entities.True
- The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies only to the government.True
- The state of Florida owns one of the stadiums where Macklemore was scheduled to perform.Can’t tell