A father who was attending a Cleveland Indians game with his children on Sunday stirred up controversy with his tweets about a fan seated in front of him who was sporting Nazi-themed tattoos.
Martin Gecovich became alarmed when the man sitting directly in front of him apparently removed his shirt, revealing two prominent tattoos. One on the man’s neck featured a Reichsadler—and “Imperial Eagle” holding a swastika. The other was a train emblazoned with a swastika. Gecovich tweeted to the Cleveland Indians:
Image via Twitter
Twitter (of course) was quick to respond to Gecovich’s complaint, with many individuals demanding that the Indians organization remove the man with the tattoo from the park:
Ya know what hasn't been driven out of the park yet? The section 160 Nazi. pic.twitter.com/4Sm7fBUXD4
— Collin Jones 🌹🇺🇸🌹 (@CollinJones) July 23, 2017
When are the ushers going to go out of their way to handle the situation of the section 160 Nazi? pic.twitter.com/zU5o7e28YW
— Collin Jones 🌹🇺🇸🌹 (@CollinJones) July 23, 2017
@Indians so y'all gonna kick that Nazi out or what?
— Sensei Chuckie R. Law (@dblsuited) July 23, 2017
the depiction of a Nazi transport train is threatening to every Holocaust victim/Jews
— Joel Buckley (@JoelABuckley) July 23, 2017
In subsequent tweets from his account (which has since been set to private), Gecovich noted that the team had responded by moving his family to different seats (presumably with a Nazi-free view).
Some pointed out that, although the tattoo was offensive, this is a free country, so the man’s right to free speech should be respected.
Those tattoos are terrible but they are his right as an American. You also have the right to say something. Good luck!
— Mark Scanes II (@Toltribe) July 23, 2017
https://twitter.com/GeorgeDavidson8/status/889192855436132352
Others noted that, as a private business, the Indians have the right to toss out fans with offensive tattoos. “Kevin” pointed out the distinction between speech regulated by the federal government (a First Amendment violation) and speech regulated by a private business (not a violation):
The Indians aren't the federal government, they can tell him to put on a shirt or he'll be escorted out/barred from attending games
— kevin💭 (@theycallmeleehe) July 23, 2017
And the Indians do just that at times:
Wow, the Indians staff made me turn my "F Michigan" shirt inside out b/c its a family park, I really hope this isn't OK.
— Abe Froman (@216Homer) July 23, 2017
Progressive Field, home to the Cleveland Indians, doesn’t have a policy on tattoos, per se. They do, however, explain in their “Security Policies” that “Abusive or inappropriate language, conduct deemed disorderly, unruly or disruptive including inappropriate dress may constitute grounds for ejection.” Major League Baseball also has a Universal Code of Conduct stating that they will intervene if “obscene or indecent clothing” detracts from the guest experience. As far as I can tell, none of these rules would cover offensive tattoos. At least not technically, though maybe they could fall under the “disruptive” category if interpreted broadly.
And, of course, we can’t have a discussion like this without throwing poor Chief Wahoo under the bus and creating a moral equivalence between an innocuous mascot and the Nazi death camps:
https://twitter.com/peterpattakos/status/889256584471293952
If I'm the @Indians I'm asking that guy with the nazi tattoo to please leave.
But I'm also taking a long hard look at the logo.
— Brad Kahn (@BK_Broila) July 23, 2017
What I want to know is why people are allowed to go shirtless at the ballpark. “No shirt, no shoes, no ball game for you.” A simple (and hygienic) rule like that would have completely avoided the Nazi tattoo problem on Sunday.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member