PhotoDude.com

Thu. Jul 22, 2004

Clouded Enjoyment and the 1st Amendment

I’m a bit late to the story of Linda Ronstadt’s altercation with the Aladdin Casino in Vegas, and some of its patrons who attended her show. Mainly because I really had nothing to say about it.

But some of the reactions to the event are worth comment. Especially one from the man featured in Ronstadt’s dedication that set off this firestorm, Mr. Fire Starter himself, Michael Moore. He’s written an open letter to the president of the Aladdin Casino:

“What country do you live in? Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called ‘The First Amendment.’ This constitutional right gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say.”

False. Any high school level civics student should be able to tell you that the First Amendment does not give “everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say.” That’s the wording you might use to explain it to a four year old. But for those who are old enough to read, it’s very specific (emphasis mine):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Despite what Mikey’s Kindergarten Primer says, the First Amendment is supposed to be a guarantee that the government will make no laws that restrict your freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you any other right to free speech, i.e., “the right to say whatever they want to say,” especially on private property.

Two other things should be pointed out. One, Ronstadt did get to exercise free speech, she was not muzzled. Two, when you exercise free speech, even when you claim it is guaranteed by the First Amendment, you should expect other people to exercise their First Amendment rights in response. When they do, and loudly disagree with you, this does not mean your rights to free speech have been abridged or denied in any way!

It means you’ve entered the marketplace of ideas, and in that particular room of 4,500 people, Ronstadt’s “idea” was roundly rejected. Nothing more, nothing less. The story says that she’s been making that dedication her whole tour, with no problem. In cities people call “home,” you probably have the usual red/blue split, but it’s a different scene than Vegas. First of all, for all its “wild” reputation, Vegas is a fairly conservative place. It’s business. Big business. You know, casino’s, like the one where Ronstadt was performing.

Secondly, you’re playing to an audience that largely doesn’t live there. They’re on vacation. They want to be entertained. In fact, they’ve probably paid big bucks to be entertained. You’ve got an environment where anything that smells of “political lecture” is going to go down hard. “Oh, man, we were having fun forgetting our troubles, and then you bring up that partisan poison … after my fourth drink. BOOOOOOOOO!”

Hey, sorry, Linda, you play, you pay.

But, back to Michael’s letter of reason: “Are you crazy? For crying out loud, it was a song DEDICATION! To ‘Desperado!’ Every American loves that song! Sure, some people didn’t like the dedication, and that’s their right. But neither they nor you have the right to remove her from your building when all she did was exercise her AMERICAN right to speak her mind.”

First of all, let me go on the record to point out another Michael Moore lie (since pointing out lies seems to be the trendy thing to do, with the options of “Moore” or “Bush”). Every American does not in fact “love” the song “Desperado.” I know this is a lie, because I personally hate that whiney-ass song, and always have.

But aside from that, I wanted to point out Michael Moore’s reappraisal of the concept of “property rights.” He tells Mr. Timmins he does not “have the right to remove her from your building...” He admits it’s not her building, it’s “your” building. You just don’t have a right to determine [1] who’s in it, or [2], how they impact the other inhabitants of “your” building.

And one would assume that if that applies to corporately owned property, it would also apply to individually owned property. So … I have to let Linda Ronstadt and/or Michael Moore (or Ann Coulter and/or Rush Limbaugh) into my condo, and if they set up a partisan spew stand, I can’t do anything about it without violating their First Amendment rights?!?

I … don’t … think so. There will be gunfire, in my building.

This was a private business contract … unfavorably concluded. A dispute on private property that somehow got so out of hand that the private property owner decided some “ejecting” was needed. You can disagree about the origins of the dispute, you can boycott the Aladdin or Ronstadt, and use it as “Just Another Example of The Evil Enemy” (right or left, a villain for everyone!). But to call it censorship, or claim the First Amendment has been violated doesn’t even qualify as a bad argument. It’s embarrassingly uneducated rhetoric.

In closing, I found this quote today on Neal Boortz’s site: “Linda Ronstadt made this recent statement to the media: ‘It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I’d rather not know.’”

This strikes me as so very odd. “Cloud my enjoyment”? First of all, this implies that, in her mind, the concert is done primarily for her benefit and “enjoyment.” Why, sure, no one wants to do something they don’t enjoy, but it strikes me as a very selfish attitude for a … performer.

Secondly, I’m not too keen on the idea of a performer passing judgment on a sizable chunk of their audience in that way. The word that comes to mind is “elitist.” Creative performers and artists, of all people, should know that humans come in a billion flavors with a zillion beliefs. And all you can hope to do, is to connect with them for one moment through your art, or your performance. It’s the beauty of creativity; that someone on the other side of the world, with a different language, and none of your cultural background or beliefs, can create something of beauty that touches your heart. For just that moment, there’s communication where none could exist otherwise.

The fact they are a Communist and an atheist is entirely irrelevant to that moment.

That’s a precious thing to an artist or performer. To know, even if only every now and then, you connected. They got it. When I post a photo here, and someone leaves a comment or e-mails me to tell me how much they loved it, it doesn’t even cross my mind to wonder if they are a Republican evangelical or a vegetarian volunteer for Greenpeace. I couldn’t care less.

I can’t imagine why Linda Ronstadt would. I wonder how she would react if it was reported that Ted Nugent had said, “It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is an atheist or gay. It can harsh my mellow. I’d rather not know.”

As a fellow performer concerned about “clouded enjoyment,” would she be understanding? Or would she join the certain chorus of condemnation?