Should the Chicago Bears have the right to deny field access from fans wearing opposing colors?
Green Bay Packers fan Russell Beckman doesn’t think so — and he’s taking the Bears to court over his right to wear green and gold at Soldier Field.
At issue is an incident from this past season. Though he’s an unabashed Packers fan, Beckman has owned a personal seat license at Soldier Field and season tickets for Bears games since 2003. He has also taken part of the “STH Experiences” program the team offers to fans who rack up “rewards points” for different purchases.
For the past three seasons, Beckman said he’s spent his “rewards points” on a chance to stand at the edge of the field during pregame warmups. He wore Packers gear during the 2014 and 2015 trips but said he was denied field access when he wore Green Bay colors for last December’s game between the oldest rivals in the NFL.
Beckman appealed to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, but didn’t hear back, presumably because the commissioner has more important things to do.
Beckman then decided to take legal action against the team. In a lawsuit detailed by Crain’s Chicago Business, Beckman says the Bears have “deprived me of my ability to fully enjoy this specific on-field experience and the general experience of the Bears-Packers game at Soldier field.”
Good thing Beckman’s a Packers fan. He’ll need plenty of cheese to go with that whine.
it isn't like the team is denying him wearing his garb into the stadium, they just don't want fans in opposing colors on the sidelines apparently
unfortunately for the Bears, if they don't have their policy clearly defined for these field access times, this dipwad could have an actual legal case
apparently the guy is spending enough $$$ to rack up those reward points, and I doubt they cared what jersey he was wearing when they were taking his cash
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
I tend to agree with the guy. If the Bears don't have a written policy saying you're disqualified from participating in that benefit if you wear clothes of another team, then he's got an argument.
That said, the Bears are a private company and free speech doesn't necessarily apply... Which is why they can specify that limitation in a policy.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".
Mikefive wrote:That said, the Bears are a private company and free speech doesn't necessarily apply... Which is why they can specify that limitation in a policy.
This might be an interesting case for free speech/first amendment nerds such as myself to follow. While the Bears are a private company, this leg this guy is trying to stand on is the Bears wouldn't allow him to wear what he wanted without punishment at Soldier Field, which is a public park.
This guy just might win. I don't understand what he's trying to win from this, other than he's trying to prove some point in the Bears-Packers rivalry, but he has a chance to win. Can't imagine he'd gain a whole lot monetarily though.
He should be able to wear whatever he likes as long as it doesn't violate appropriate policy for public decorum/decency: racist, hate-speech-laden, culturally offensive garb, etc.
If you pay the price of admission and are wearing anything with the NFL shield on it, there shouldn't be questions asked.
UOK wrote:He should be able to wear whatever he likes as long as it doesn't violate appropriate policy for public decorum/decency: racist, hate-speech-laden, culturally offensive garb, etc.
If you pay the price of admission and are wearing anything with the NFL shield on it, there shouldn't be questions asked.
Russell Beckman alleges in his lawsuit that the Bears wouldn't let him wear Packers gear on the sideline during pregame warmups last season during a season-ticket holder event, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Beckman, who also has Packers season tickets, lives in Mount Pleasant, Wis., approximately 75 miles north of Chicago's Soldier Field and 140 miles south of Lambeau Field in Green Bay.
His spin on Packers-Bears: "It's the biggest rivalry. The excitement is Bears and Packers fans together, representing their teams. I could have worn something nondescript, but I'm there for the Packers-Bears game. I feel like the Bears are diminishing that."
Beckman, who has had Bears season tickets since 2003, says he earned the right to go on the field through a team loyalty program's points system.
Beckman's lawsuit alleges that only after he used his points in August on pregame sideline access before the Dec. 18 Bears-Packers game did he get an email from the Bears: Fans wouldn't be allowed on the field in opposing team gear, unlike previous years when Beckman said he wore Packers gear without incident.
His suit isn't seeking financial gain, outside of legal fees. He said he just wants the Bears to reverse their policy so he can wear his Packers jersey and dozens of strands of green and gold beads on the sideline at Soldier Field.
"It's something I paid for," he said of the sideline experience. "I'm not on a noble crusade. I'm not the center of attention where I stand. [The Bears' policy] bothers me, and I'm taking them to court."
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
Russell Beckman alleges in his lawsuit that the Bears wouldn't let him wear Packers gear on the sideline during pregame warmups last season during a season-ticket holder event, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Beckman, who also has Packers season tickets, lives in Mount Pleasant, Wis., approximately 75 miles north of Chicago's Soldier Field and 140 miles south of Lambeau Field in Green Bay.
His spin on Packers-Bears: "It's the biggest rivalry. The excitement is Bears and Packers fans together, representing their teams. I could have worn something nondescript, but I'm there for the Packers-Bears game. I feel like the Bears are diminishing that."
Beckman, who has had Bears season tickets since 2003, says he earned the right to go on the field through a team loyalty program's points system.
Beckman's lawsuit alleges that only after he used his points in August on pregame sideline access before the Dec. 18 Bears-Packers game did he get an email from the Bears: Fans wouldn't be allowed on the field in opposing team gear, unlike previous years when Beckman said he wore Packers gear without incident.
His suit isn't seeking financial gain, outside of legal fees. He said he just wants the Bears to reverse their policy so he can wear his Packers jersey and dozens of strands of green and gold beads on the sideline at Soldier Field.
"It's something I paid for," he said of the sideline experience. "I'm not on a noble crusade. I'm not the center of attention where I stand. [The Bears' policy] bothers me, and I'm taking them to court."
Figures something bothers someone so they sue. Bears should refund his points since they changed policy after he purchased though, but they are a private company they can do what they want.
UOK wrote:He should be able to wear whatever he likes as long as it doesn't violate appropriate policy for public decorum/decency: racist, hate-speech-laden, culturally offensive garb, etc.
If you pay the price of admission and are wearing anything with the NFL shield on it, there shouldn't be questions asked.
Well, fair or unfair, this guy just painted a huge target on his back for every drunk meatball in soldier field. He's gonna have a great season I'm sure.
UOK wrote:He should be able to wear whatever he likes as long as it doesn't violate appropriate policy for public decorum/decency: racist, hate-speech-laden, culturally offensive garb, etc.
If you pay the price of admission and are wearing anything with the NFL shield on it, there shouldn't be questions asked.
Packers gear is culturally offensive garb.
I disagree. Our culture isn't turned off by the Packers. Only other NFL teams are, particularly Bears fans and those of other NFC-N teams. By that logic, arguably NFL gear from any team outside the Bears should be verboten.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".
If you were joking, then you inadvertently made a very good point. And IF this guy does decide to take the Bears' brass to court (and I will admit the guy does have a fair point to make) and if I were a Bears' attorney (which I am not), I would make the exact point you made, the Packers gear from a Chicago Bears organizational and fan base standpoint is indeed culturally offensive and therefore should be considered forbidden. It's kind of a "you don't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre/inciting a riot/safety issue" ruling made by the Bears' organization. Again, putting on my barrister's robe in defense of the Bears' FO decision to forbid this guy field access, I would argue that we (the Bears' FO) feared the man may be pelted with objects thrown by the spirited fans.
Granted my logic may be a "Hail Mary" type of defense, but it may have some traction in a court of law.
The universe is under no obligation to make any sense to you...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
If you were joking, then you inadvertently made a very good point. And IF this guy does decide to take the Bears' brass to court (and I will admit the guy does have a fair point to make) and if I were a Bears' attorney (which I am not), I would make the exact point you made, the Packers gear from a Chicago Bears organizational and fan base standpoint is indeed culturally offensive and therefore should be considered forbidden. It's kind of a "you don't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre/inciting a riot/safety issue" ruling made by the Bears' organization. Again, putting on my barrister's robe in defense of the Bears' FO decision to forbid this guy field access, I would argue that we (the Bears' FO) feared the man may be pelted with objects thrown by the spirited fans.
Granted my logic may be a "Hail Mary" type of defense, but it may have some traction in a court of law.
i certainly think i have PTSD from the last 20 years of packers/bears games.
eh, Bears have every right to set terms and change terms without consent or notice. This guy was given notice, then decided to be an ass anyway. He was probably given the chance to take off his Fudgie gear and still go to the sideline but refused and then sued because "he wasn't allowed to enjoy his fan experience" of trying to provoke his rival team's fans. The guy is simply an asshole, and not because he's a Fudgie fan, but because he's trying to claim to be a victim because he was told he couldn't be an asshole at Soldier Field any more. I hope the courts throw out the case, and somehow he gets a legal bitch slap for filing a frivolous law suit.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
So if I bring my exes to Soldier Field does that means they have to stay clothed during the game or would the choice of body paint matter? What would be the most important factor in the Bears decision concerning their (non) attire?
pus wrote:So if I bring my exes to Soldier Field does that means they have to stay clothed during the game or would the choice of body paint matter? What would be the most important factor in the Bears decision concerning their (non) attire?
you're friendly enough with your exes that they will attend a game with you wearing only body paint?
impressive
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
Mikefive wrote:That said, the Bears are a private company and free speech doesn't necessarily apply... Which is why they can specify that limitation in a policy.
This might be an interesting case for free speech/first amendment nerds such as myself to follow. While the Bears are a private company, this leg this guy is trying to stand on is the Bears wouldn't allow him to wear what he wanted without punishment at Soldier Field, which is a public park.
This guy just might win. I don't understand what he's trying to win from this, other than he's trying to prove some point in the Bears-Packers rivalry, but he has a chance to win. Can't imagine he'd gain a whole lot monetarily though.
The first amendment doesn't apply because the Bears are not the government, and the first amendment only prevents the government from interfering with free speech. Private entities can restrict it without violating the first amendment.
Mikefive wrote:That said, the Bears are a private company and free speech doesn't necessarily apply... Which is why they can specify that limitation in a policy.
This might be an interesting case for free speech/first amendment nerds such as myself to follow. While the Bears are a private company, this leg this guy is trying to stand on is the Bears wouldn't allow him to wear what he wanted without punishment at Soldier Field, which is a public park.
This guy just might win. I don't understand what he's trying to win from this, other than he's trying to prove some point in the Bears-Packers rivalry, but he has a chance to win. Can't imagine he'd gain a whole lot monetarily though.
The first amendment doesn't apply because the Bears are not the government, and the first amendment only prevents the government from interfering with free speech. Private entities can restrict it without violating the first amendment.
Mikefive wrote:That said, the Bears are a private company and free speech doesn't necessarily apply... Which is why they can specify that limitation in a policy.
This might be an interesting case for free speech/first amendment nerds such as myself to follow. While the Bears are a private company, this leg this guy is trying to stand on is the Bears wouldn't allow him to wear what he wanted without punishment at Soldier Field, which is a public park.
This guy just might win. I don't understand what he's trying to win from this, other than he's trying to prove some point in the Bears-Packers rivalry, but he has a chance to win. Can't imagine he'd gain a whole lot monetarily though.
The first amendment doesn't apply because the Bears are not the government, and the first amendment only prevents the government from interfering with free speech. Private entities can restrict it without violating the first amendment.
But can they restrict it on public property?
It still only protects you from persecution from the government. Generally the only things private companies aren't allowed to restrict involve protected classes.
Try having signs loaded with curse words at a Bears game. Still on park district property, but they'll throw you out for it.
I don't know if the Bears will push it because I don't think it'll be worth it to them, but I don't think it'll be a problem for them.
