Publicly owned stadiums are leasing decisional authority to private third-party companies that are not subject to First Amendment constraints.
Posted by Behind the Bastards, Checked
- Sources
- 3 contradict4 support
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 55%
Behind the BastardsOct 3, 2026
The arrangement itself is supported: several publicly owned stadiums are privately operated under leases or management agreements, and sources say private operators generally are not bound by the First Amendment. But the claim's broad statement that these operators are not subject to First Amendment constraints is contested, because courts can treat private operators of publicly funded venues as state actors.
A detail. The sources confirm the gist; the verdict faults a detail such as a date, number or wording.
This claim is about the present, so it is judged as of the day it was checked.
What was said
… at stake is the ability of all of the rest of us to freely associate, to petition the government, to believe the things that we believe without being censored, without being punished for doing so. One of the other things that deserves to be said here is, one of the reasons that this is a little bit confusing and that the waters are so muddied is this issue that I referred to a minute ago with respect to these publicly owned stadiums leasing out decisional authority to these third-party companies, right? Yeah, are private and which, are as non-government entities, are not subject to the constraints of the First Amendment. That's not a problem with the First Amendment. That's a problem with the privatization of public life. Yeah, and I think we're seeing that in a lot of other realms as well. …
Behind the Bastards · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. Legal sources say private entities can be state actors when they run publicly funded facilities, which would subject them to First Amendment constraints. Whether they are depends on facts and tests, so the blanket claim is contested.[2][3][6]
Supports. A September 2026 report says most of the stadiums where Macklemore was to perform are publicly owned but privately operated, and only a few are fully private or run by public agencies.[7]
Supports. Washington's RCW 36.102 and Minnesota's Statute 473J.09 authorize public stadium authorities to lease facilities and to contract with public or private entities to operate or manage them.[4][5]
Supports. Legal analysis states that the First Amendment primarily restrains government, so private operators are generally not bound by it.[1][7]
Context. Commentators (FIRE's Aaron Terr) note that whether a private operator is bound depends on who made the decision and whether the government directed it, so the answer varies by case.[6][7]
Sources
7 sources: 1 fact-checker, 4 primary, 2 not rated
- 1Legal experts split on if NFL can punish for anthem protestsapnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 2[PDF] You Can't Sit with Us: Limiting Free Speech in Sports Arenas and ...digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu · primary source · cited for: contradicts
- 3Silencing the Crowd: Regulating Free Speech in Professional Sports Facilitiesscholarship.law.marquette.edu · primary source · cited for: contradicts
- 4Minnesota Statutes 2020, Section 473J.09revisor.mn.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 5Chapter 36.102 RCWapp.leg.wa.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 6Did Macklemore's ouster violate the First Amendment? One ...wgbh.org · not rated · cited for: contradicts, context
- 7Macklemore’s ouster puts public venues and free speech in spotlightyahoo.com · not rated · cited for: supports, context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Privately owned stadiums are at liberty to decide whether or not to host specific events or speakers.True
- The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies only to the government.True
- 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 government is permitted to impose constraints on the time, place, and manner of expression if they are reasonable, content-neutral, and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.True