CalBear
Footballguy
I think this line of reasoning is flawed. OK, there are no constitutional rights being violated here, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that these restrictions represent an impingement on the more amorphous concept of liberty.In terms of the idea of individual freedom, there is nothing being legally violated here. You are an individual person who by buying an individual ticket to a presentation put on by an independant organization. When a person goes to a game, he or she is entering into a contract with the organization. If a person does not like the restrictions that the entity is placing on seeing the presentation, that person simply does not agree to the terms..i.e. not show up to the games.
Don't confuse the fact that 70,000 other people are in attendence make it public or "government" event or even more dicey the fact the many if not most of the stadiums have some (if not all) amount of tax payer funding still does not mean that the party putting on the event, "the NFL," does not have the right to restrict your behavior at the event.
There is no true violation of individual freedoms, just people who need to figure out what's more important (short or long term) the ability to carry a reasonable sized backpack into a football stadium or the enjoyment of being at the stadium that openly tells individuals to only bring keys, ID and a ticket to the event(slight exaggeration).
We are giving over more and more control of the operation of the country to corporations. By our laws, those corporations are not bound to provide constitutional rights, so every time we sign a contract (and purchasing a ticket is signing a contract) we are handing over some of our liberty. Part of the job of the government is to "promote the general welfare and insure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our [children]". That's more than a control on the power of government; it's also a mandate towards the use of that power for the public good, including placing restrictions on what clauses corporations can put into a contract.
Does this fall into the "there oughta be a law" category? Maybe not. But the restriction on liberty is a valid concern. Here's a definition:
liberty: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
Liberty can be restricted by governmental or corporate actors.