No free speech zone?

B

Beryl

WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do?
Registered Senior Member
I was recently given a link to this article. Basically a band, The Mammals, played an anti-Bush song (lyrics can be found here) at a music festival and some people had a problem with it, as is to be expected. Those people complained to the people who ran the festival, so the people who ran the festival asked the band not to play the song again. This isn't quite a free speech issue, but it isn't quite not a free speech issue either.

I for one feel that the festival never should have done that, not because I agree with the statement made in the song (although I do), but because I think set lists should be left up to the performer. Completely.

I know at this point some of you will probably be thinking "That's not true, imagine how horrible it would be if some band got up and played a bunch of racist songs with profance lyrics!" (or something like it). That statement is entirely correct, that would be bad. I think festivals should have the right to screen music, although I don't feel they should except in extreme cases. But if they want to do that, they should not have the band at all. Really, it takes very little investigating to determine where The Mammals' or most other bands' opinions lie.

Please discuss.
 
Haha. For a while, I forgot you were at this message board as well. I saw the title of the thread, and I thought, "Hey, that's the name of a thread in that other board!" And then, as if it were a little pebble, I said to myself, "Beryl!" :D

I agree with you (*Groans*, not again! :p). If the festival coordinators didn't like the kind of music The Mammals play, they shouldn't have invited them to play. It's so ridiculously easy to tell The Mammals are anti-Bush. They shouldn't be the festival coordinators if they can't just check the background of these bands. I mean seriously!
 
any restriction on political rights such as playing those songs, must be abolished. if people dont like it, they dont have to listen to it. even racist music should not be outlawed, it is their right to be racist, whether we want to accept their views is up to us, allowing them to play it will not affect you
 
This is not government, it's PRIVATE. So for me, they have a "right" to tell anyone that they invited not to do what they don't like. It's no different to be invited into someone's home and not do what they ask of you.

This has nothing to with government or constitutions or human rights or ...well, any of that crap, it's PRIVATE.

Baron Max
 
It's private, thus not illegal, but it is wrong, and anyone interested in free speech should boycot the festival.
 
Athelwulf said:
Haha. For a while, I forgot you were at this message board as well. I saw the title of the thread, and I thought, "Hey, that's the name of a thread in that other board!" And then, as if it were a little pebble, I said to myself, "Beryl!" :D

I agree with you (*Groans*, not again! :p). If the festival coordinators didn't like the kind of music The Mammals play, they shouldn't have invited them to play. It's so ridiculously easy to tell The Mammals are anti-Bush. They shouldn't be the festival coordinators if they can't just check the background of these bands. I mean seriously!
Click to expand...

I bet people reading that will really not understand the pebble comment... :D
 
It is not wrong, as spidergoat claims. Like any organization, they have a mission. it is stated as such:

Enrich the community by celebrating its native culture; Educate the public to the historical achievements and artistic expressions of related global cultures; Encourage an appreciation for the arts; Enhance the economic development of the Acadiana region through the presentation of an internationally recognized arts event; Promote cultural exchange on a national and international level

The message that was presented by the bands song did not mesh with the above mission statement, and therefore, Festival International had every right to ask them not to play it again. I am fed up with folks that believe everyone, except someone who has forked out a bunch of money to do something, has a right to do as they please.

Let's try a little different example....if you invited someone to play at your wedding, and they decided to play a kind of music that you hated, would you, or would you not have the right to ask them to play something different????
 
getts -

A few of the things in the mission statement could be applied to this, namely appreciation for the arts and cultural exchange.

And iff I invited someone to play at my wedding it would be because they play a type of music I like. The chances of a band spontaneously playing something totally different from what they usually do are pretty slim.
 
Beryl said:
getts -

A few of the things in the mission statement could be applied to this, namely appreciation for the arts and cultural exchange.

And iff I invited someone to play at my wedding it would be because they play a type of music I like. The chances of a band spontaneously playing something totally different from what they usually do are pretty slim.
Click to expand...

I still disagree - Bands that do weddings, usually have a wide open reportoire. They often times play anyting from Bon Jovi to Neil Diamond to (although pretty poorly) AC/DC. If you were looking for the Neil Diamond slow stuff, and they played one AC/DC song, would you not have the right to ask the not to play heavy stuff?? or Vice Versa?? Please be honest....
 
getts said:
I still disagree - Bands that do weddings, usually have a wide open reportoire. They often times play anyting from Bon Jovi to Neil Diamond to (although pretty poorly) AC/DC. If you were looking for the Neil Diamond slow stuff, and they played one AC/DC song, would you not have the right to ask the not to play heavy stuff?? or Vice Versa?? Please be honest....
Click to expand...

I guess I have a bit of trouble imagining that, because if I were to be getting married and had a band there it would be band that doesn't play that stuff... I mean, I'd have a Cajun band, maybe an old-time stringband, maybe a band like The Mammals, but some band that I was familiar with and loved and knew well enough to know they weren't going to spontaneously play something I hate.

But, I suppose I can think of it in the abstract. If it were a wedding, it would be slightly more acceptable to ask the band to do something particular. But a wedding is a private party, and therefore rather extremely different. When people are getting married they have a right to expect everyone at their wedding to be conforming to what they want. At a music festival that is not the case.
 
The Nine Inch Nails pulled a similar stunt. As if they would somehow be profound by performing 'The Hand that Feeds' with a backdrop of Bush

But still, here was Trents response:
<img src="http://www.nin.com/current/5-26-05.gif"></img>

I basically agree. Free speech involves both the speaker and the listener(s). Why waste time performing for people who care as little for your rights as they do for their own?
 
Beryl said:
I bet people reading that will really not understand the pebble comment... :D
Click to expand...
Yeah ... Aren't inside jokes great?! :D

Baron Max said:
This is not government, it's PRIVATE. So for me, they have a "right" to tell anyone that they invited not to do what they don't like. It's no different to be invited into someone's home and not do what they ask of you.

This has nothing to with government or constitutions or human rights or ...well, any of that crap, it's PRIVATE.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, this is happening on government property or a property which is receiving some sort of government funding; and this is happening where people can just walk in off the street. Public, government-owned property is different from a privately owned establishment such as someone's house. A house is private property - Wherever a music festival is held usually isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top