Today I feel the need to respond publicly to a letter that appeared in what passes for an actual local newspaper on Long Island, namely Newsday. Roger Waters is scheduled to appear in concert at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (which everyone conveniently but irreverently calls "Nassau Coliseum"). It is an outmoded arena constructed in the early 1970s to accommodate the then-new New York Islanders NHL franchise. The Islanders have since left for hipper but perhaps not greener pastures in Brooklyn, while Nassau County (which owns the Coliseum) responded by shrinking the number of seats, slapping on an ugly facade, and jacking up the parking fee.
So here's the thing: Waters is an ultra-left activist who has been sharply critical of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. This has prompted some on Long Island to demand that county officials and the Coliseum management step in and cancel their contract with Waters' promoters, thus preventing him from performing in the Coliseum. The letter's author claims that Waters is a "raging Antisemite," and that Waters describes himself as a "militant atheist." I would like to address both of these points.
First, the fact that Waters is critical of Israel's policies does not make him an Antisemite, raging or otherwise. Many Jews and many conservatives (and the two groups overlap somewhat, as in a classic Venn diagram) consider any criticism of Israel to be proof of deep seated Antisemitism. Candidates in the United States who criticize Israel do not get elected. But Israel is not synonymous with Judaism, or the Jewish people. You can criticize a political entity without impugning an entire religion.
Second, let's assume that Roger Waters is a militant atheist. So what? How is that relevant to his position on Israeli-Palestinian relations? Does the author even know what a "militant atheist" is? If not, here's a helpful description: a militant atheist complains every time there's a church-state violation. A militant atheist tries to stop parents from relying on "faith-healers" instead of legitimate medicine. A militant atheist tries to get other cultures to end their faith-based practice of female genital mutilation. A militant atheist does not attack people of faith simply for believing.
The author then helpfully reminds us that, just as Waters' right to free speech allows him to perform for Long Island, the county leaders have the "free-speech-protected right to silence him." Is he right? Some will recall my earlier posts in which I pointed out to people who are quick to claim "First Amendment violation" that your boss or network chief is within his or her rights to fire you if you publicly embarrass your employer. The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not jail, fine, or otherwise punish you for what you say or print. It does not guarantee that you can keep your job if you're an asshole.
Is the situation with waters and the Nassau Coliseum somehow different? Well, yes. Nassau County is under no legal obligation (beyond the contract it signed with Waters' promoters) to guarantee Waters a venue. Presumably, if they break the contract they will have to compensate him financially. But the idea of any government entity practicing de facto censorship makes me uncomfortable. Many privately owned concert venues canceled appearances by the Dixie Chicks after they criticized President GW Bush's decision to invade Iraq. This was unfortunate but not illegal. Had the state of Texas declared that the Chicks were barred from performing anywhere within its borders, however, the Chicks would then have had a legitimate First Amendment-based complaint.
So whether one agrees with Waters is not the issue. Popular speech does not need protection. Nor does speech that praises our government. It is unpopular speech -- speech that is offensive to many, or that criticizes government officials -- that needs to be protected. Asking a local branch of government to silence an artist because you disagree with his politics is anathema to the freedom we too often take for granted.
So here's the thing: Waters is an ultra-left activist who has been sharply critical of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. This has prompted some on Long Island to demand that county officials and the Coliseum management step in and cancel their contract with Waters' promoters, thus preventing him from performing in the Coliseum. The letter's author claims that Waters is a "raging Antisemite," and that Waters describes himself as a "militant atheist." I would like to address both of these points.
First, the fact that Waters is critical of Israel's policies does not make him an Antisemite, raging or otherwise. Many Jews and many conservatives (and the two groups overlap somewhat, as in a classic Venn diagram) consider any criticism of Israel to be proof of deep seated Antisemitism. Candidates in the United States who criticize Israel do not get elected. But Israel is not synonymous with Judaism, or the Jewish people. You can criticize a political entity without impugning an entire religion.
Second, let's assume that Roger Waters is a militant atheist. So what? How is that relevant to his position on Israeli-Palestinian relations? Does the author even know what a "militant atheist" is? If not, here's a helpful description: a militant atheist complains every time there's a church-state violation. A militant atheist tries to stop parents from relying on "faith-healers" instead of legitimate medicine. A militant atheist tries to get other cultures to end their faith-based practice of female genital mutilation. A militant atheist does not attack people of faith simply for believing.
The author then helpfully reminds us that, just as Waters' right to free speech allows him to perform for Long Island, the county leaders have the "free-speech-protected right to silence him." Is he right? Some will recall my earlier posts in which I pointed out to people who are quick to claim "First Amendment violation" that your boss or network chief is within his or her rights to fire you if you publicly embarrass your employer. The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not jail, fine, or otherwise punish you for what you say or print. It does not guarantee that you can keep your job if you're an asshole.
Is the situation with waters and the Nassau Coliseum somehow different? Well, yes. Nassau County is under no legal obligation (beyond the contract it signed with Waters' promoters) to guarantee Waters a venue. Presumably, if they break the contract they will have to compensate him financially. But the idea of any government entity practicing de facto censorship makes me uncomfortable. Many privately owned concert venues canceled appearances by the Dixie Chicks after they criticized President GW Bush's decision to invade Iraq. This was unfortunate but not illegal. Had the state of Texas declared that the Chicks were barred from performing anywhere within its borders, however, the Chicks would then have had a legitimate First Amendment-based complaint.
So whether one agrees with Waters is not the issue. Popular speech does not need protection. Nor does speech that praises our government. It is unpopular speech -- speech that is offensive to many, or that criticizes government officials -- that needs to be protected. Asking a local branch of government to silence an artist because you disagree with his politics is anathema to the freedom we too often take for granted.
Comments
Post a Comment