D'Backs Owner Tells Dodgers Fans To Remove Dodgers Gear Or Switch Seats

[SeaBird]

Basically it was a "take off your Dodgers jersey or we'll have to move you". I don't see how this can be legal. Freedom of speech is at issue here. What would you do?

?Due to the high visibility of the home plate box, we ask opposing team?s fans when they purchase those seats to refrain from wearing that team?s colors,? the D-backs said in a note to Deadspin. ?During last night?s game, when Ken Kendrick noticed the fans there, he offered them another suite if they preferred to remain in their Dodger gear. When they chose to stay, he bought them all D-backs gear and a round of drinks and requested that they abide by our policy and they obliged.?Here's the article and supporting pictures:

http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/diamondbacks_owner_made_dodgers_fans_switch_gear_or_move_seats/13392316?linksrc=foxrg_mlb

[waroriole]

I hate when people talk about freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment when a non government entity is involved. Though, maybe we should start making the argument that they are govt entities with all the taxpayer money they get for their stadiums.

Either way, this is real douchey behavior, and just bad business.

[O's84]

[video=youtube;IIOI-Rs-eo0]

[OFFNY]

D'Backs Owner Tells Dodgers Fans To Remove Dodgers Gear Or Switch Seats

**** him.

[elextrano8]

I hate when people talk about freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment when a non government entity is involved. Though, maybe we should start making the argument that they are govt entities with all the taxpayer money they get for their stadiums.

If I have not confused myself, the D'back's stadium is owned by the local county and already, in fact, a government entity. If that sounds kinda snotty, I don't mean it as such - I've just done a basic level of research on it (read: wikipedia), and the link for the owner of the stadium ended up on the Maricopa County page, so I'm not relying on truly solid evidence beyond that. If the stadium were actually owned by the D'backs, it would be an entirely different matter.

[Morgan423]

What the... ? How delusional is this guy? I don't think anything of it when I see a fan in the gear of the opposing team in the sight line of a common camera. Does anyone actually care? I highly doubt it.

[waroriole]

If I have not confused myself, the D'back's stadium is owned by the local county and already, in fact, a government entity. If that sounds kinda snotty, I don't mean it as such - I've just done a basic level of research on it (read: wikipedia), and the link for the owner of the stadium ended up on the Maricopa County page, so I'm not relying on truly solid evidence beyond that. If the stadium were actually owned by the D'backs, it would be an entirely different matter.

Good find. I seriously doubt anyone would go to the trouble of filing a suit for this. How do you determine damages?

I also would guess the D'backs would claim it was their rule, and not the stadium owner.

[OFFNY]

Basically it was a "take off your Dodgers jersey or we'll have to move you". I don't see how this can be legal. Freedom of speech is at issue here. What would you do?

?Due to the high visibility of the home plate box, we ask opposing team?s fans when they purchase those seats to refrain from wearing that team?s colors,? the D-backs said in a note to Deadspin. ?During last night?s game, when Ken Kendrick noticed the fans there, he offered them another suite if they preferred to remain in their Dodger gear. When they chose to stay, he bought them all D-backs gear and a round of drinks and requested that they abide by our policy and they obliged.?Here's the article and supporting pictures:

http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/diamondbacks_owner_made_dodgers_fans_switch_gear_or_move_seats/13392316?linksrc=foxrg_mlb

Good find. Thanks.

[Migrant Redbird]

I hate when people talk about freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment when a non government entity is involved.

But it is a "freedom of speech" issue, even though it's not protected by the 1st amendment. Read the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If you, or the owner of the Diamondbacks, want to tell me what I can and cannot wear, you'd better have a very good reason. In my opinion, this would be true even if the stadium wasn't public property.

In this case, the Diamondbacks were apparently embarrassed because Dodgers fans were prominently displayed in their TV coverage. They chose to bribe (or threaten) the fans to either move or change their clothing. In this case, the Dodgers fans chose to cooperate. I would have told the Diamondbacks to go pound sand.

The Diamondbacks have an opportunity to sell those tickets to their own fans. If not enough Diamondbacks fans buy the tickets -- or choose to sell them to fans of visiting teams -- that's tough. They have the option to reserve those seats for team employees and/or guests, rather than offering them to the general public.

If the clothing displayed offensive language/images or was too racy, team officials would have a valid point. They didn't.

[waroriole]

But it is a "freedom of speech" issue, even though it's not protected by the 1st amendment. Read the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If you, or the owner of the Diamondbacks, want to tell me what I can and cannot wear, you'd better have a very good reason. In my opinion, this would be true even if the stadium wasn't public property.

In this case, the Diamondbacks were apparently embarrassed because Dodgers fans were prominently displayed in their TV coverage. They chose to bribe (or threaten) the fans to either move or change their clothing. In this case, the Dodgers fans chose to cooperate. I would have told the Diamondbacks to go pound sand.

The 9th Amendment doesn't extend that beyond the government. The 9th basically says that just because the right is not listed here, does not mean it doesn't exist.

[DrungoHazewood]

I've long been in favor of soccer-style seating. To the largest extent possible you stick the visiting fans in a section just this side of Siberia. Of course some folks get seats amongst the home fans, but it's really not that much. And the supporters' sections, the real die hards (really no equivalent in most baseball stadiums), there's really no visiting fans there at all. At DC United matches I've seen people more-or-less thrown out of the Screaming Eagles sections for wearing visiting colors.

I see nothing at all wrong with this. If you need an excuse it's the old go-to of safety. No fights in the stands between home/visiting supporters if they can't sit together. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to private businesses.

[DrungoHazewood]

But it is a "freedom of speech" issue, even though it's not protected by the 1st amendment. Read the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If you, or the owner of the Diamondbacks, want to tell me what I can and cannot wear, you'd better have a very good reason. In my opinion, this would be true even if the stadium wasn't public property.

In this case, the Diamondbacks were apparently embarrassed because Dodgers fans were prominently displayed in their TV coverage. They chose to bribe (or threaten) the fans to either move or change their clothing. In this case, the Dodgers fans chose to cooperate. I would have told the Diamondbacks to go pound sand.

The Diamondbacks have an opportunity to sell those tickets to their own fans. If not enough Diamondbacks fans buy the tickets -- or choose to sell them to fans of visiting teams -- that's tough. They have the option to reserve those seats for team employees and/or guests, rather than offering them to the general public.

If the clothing displayed offensive language/images or was too racy, team officials would have a valid point. They didn't.

Then the solution isn't to make them change clothes, it's make them all sit in section 842.

[Dipper9]

Here's the key...the owner OFFERED for them to change seats or accept Dbacks gear AND a free round of drinks, and they accepted, thank you very much. Had they declined and then spoke of freedom of speech, yadda yadda yadda, they might have an argument. But once they accepted the terms offered to them, I don't see how they have much to complain about??????

[Dipper9]

But it is a "freedom of speech" issue, even though it's not protected by the 1st amendment. Read the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If you, or the owner of the Diamondbacks, want to tell me what I can and cannot wear, you'd better have a very good reason. In my opinion, this would be true even if the stadium wasn't public property.

In this case, the Diamondbacks were apparently embarrassed because Dodgers fans were prominently displayed in their TV coverage. They chose to bribe (or threaten) the fans to either move or change their clothing. In this case, the Dodgers fans chose to cooperate. I would have told the Diamondbacks to go pound sand.

The Diamondbacks have an opportunity to sell those tickets to their own fans. If not enough Diamondbacks fans buy the tickets -- or choose to sell them to fans of visiting teams -- that's tough. They have the option to reserve those seats for team employees and/or guests, rather than offering them to the general public.

If the clothing displayed offensive language/images or was too racy, team officials would have a valid point. They didn't.

You hear reports all the time that the WWE confiscates certain signs and makes people turn shirts inside out at their discretion. How is this any different?

[OFFNY]

But it is a "freedom of speech" issue, even though it's not protected by the 1st amendment. Read the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If you, or the owner of the Diamondbacks, want to tell me what I can and cannot wear, you'd better have a very good reason. In my opinion, this would be true even if the stadium wasn't public property.

In this case, the Diamondbacks were apparently embarrassed because Dodgers fans were prominently displayed in their TV coverage. They chose to bribe (or threaten) the fans to either move or change their clothing. In this case, the Dodgers fans chose to cooperate. I would have told the Diamondbacks to go pound sand.

The Diamondbacks have an opportunity to sell those tickets to their own fans. If not enough Diamondbacks fans buy the tickets -- or choose to sell them to fans of visiting teams -- that's tough. They have the option to reserve those seats for team employees and/or guests, rather than offering them to the general public.

If the clothing displayed offensive language/images or was too racy, team officials would have a valid point. They didn't.

Yes. The same goes for all ballparks too, including OPACY. If the home team's owner and/or their fans don't like large amounts of visiting teams' fans filling their stadium and/or sitting in seats that are highly visible for the TV cameras, they can go to the games. If they choose not to go ... for whatever reason ... and they don't like fans of the visiting team filling the stadium, tough.

I don't like it any more than anyone else on the numerous occasions that Red Sox and Yankee fans poured into OPACY in the many games that I attended there, but they paid for their tickets, and they have every right to be there, wear their team's colors, and root for them as I do to wear my team's colors and root for my team, whether I/they are at OPACY, Yankee Stadium, or anywhere else.

.