Like I said I understand the point you and Slowguy are making re Hate Speech and the intent. I’ve been trying to parse through it in my mind and that was a tangent when in reality there were a couple of things intertwined. Regarding it being “Hate Speech” I’m fairly certain Macklemore didn’t have any intent for violence. On that point I agree with you both and using that specific term, while obviously debatable, doesn’t negate Kraft’s position or legitimate reservations in my opinion.
The movment is still associated with a rise in antisemitism and violence and thats what Kraft and a lot of other’s have difficulty with. We don’t have to belabor that anymore, I understand we’ve moved on and I appreciate the back and forth.
I also just disagree that Ed, or anyone else for that matter, has an obligation to speak on behalf of another artist in the specific context here simply because they are artists. Artists have seemingly unlimited platforms and opportunities now for their voices and opinions to be heard.
And cancelling shows is really the only choice the angry mob gave him. I guess we won’t know what would have happened if he spoke out but also continued his shows. But a lot of people are simply angry he continued his tour rather than dropping out in solidarity.
First, my point is not that Sheeran has a particular responsibility here simply because he is an artist. I don’t think Taylor Swift has a responsibility here. Rather, it’s because this happened at Sheeran’s own shows. Plus, they’ve been friends for 13 years.
Second, yes, artists have other avenues for expression. But, that is almost always true. Even in the most egregious instances of cancel culture, the canceller could argue that the speaker can just go somewhere else.
Also, here, the canceled venues are huge. Sheeran averages about 70,000 people per show. With 7 or so venues that cancelled Macklemore, that’s a big bit of cancellation.
Third, we should not measure the responsibility to speak out (or not) by whether it would placate the most extreme elements. You’re probably right that some people won’t be satisfied by anything short of Sheeran refusing to appear at those venues. With extreme views on both sides, you can’t make everyone happy. But, that’s not a justification for Sheeran’s timidity. He should do the shows, speak forcefully against cancel culture and government suppression of speech, and if some extremists feel that’s not enough, so be it.
That’s impressive. I guess when you have FU money it makes it a little less risky, although his fan base almost certainly doesn’t align with that sentiment. Historically, at least, though public opinion has certainly shifted on that issue.
Either way, regardless of people’s opinions on the issue it was a major statement. I dislike his style of country pop but credit where it’s due.
Curious to see what comes of it from a booking standpoint.
That incident illustrates another problem with trying to suppress speech: it rarely works. What is Kraft to do now — insist that no performer make such a statement?
Someone needs to put a microphone in his face and get him on record for this development. Let him and his brand stand on business front and center rather than remaining publicly insulted from blowback while the artist catch all the flak.
I can’t imagine Kraft being pleased that Zach Bryan sported that t-shirt.
I wonder if there’s a way to work language into the contracts that stipulate that performers use the event/venue for entertainment purposes only… vs. a stage for political messaging, etc.
Although many artists deeply care about politics, social causes, etc. And work that into their performances. (e.g. Springsteen).
You’re describing a total abdication of performers’ freedom of expression. Consider what Kraft considers Hate Speech; what might violate the terms of the contract would be entirely at the discretion of the venue owner. Imagine worrying that you may forfeit all profits from a performance If the venue owner decided that your shirt too closely resembled the colors of a Palestinian flag, for example.
Could Kraft do that? Yeah, legally it’s his venue and he can impose restrictions. It’s possible to draft language that excluded some overtly political stuff.
Should Kraft do that? Surely not. He might face a boycott, even from artists who are not overtly political but object in principle. Who knows how many artists would refuse to play there?
Plus, the adverse publicity would bring more politics into the situation. Kraft himself is quite political, so there’d be accusations of hypocrisy. Plus, all the jokes about whether Patriots should support free speech.
Right. There are already restrictions in place. I think the NFL is pretty heavy handed on what they allow and don’t allow.
Pretty sure they wouldn’t allow a “Free Palestine” sticker. Nor would they allow a harmless, “Save the Manuals” (cars/shifting), regardless of how non-controversial that is.
There’s likely that tangible and intangible cost/benefit analysis that comes into play in deciding to do something like this or not.
But generally, do contracts stipulate what is and isn’t allowed when hosting an event? If I rent a stadium/track to host a running event but instead of running everyone marches around a track with banners and signs for some social cause, is that a violation of the contract?
I don’t know what is standard in such contracts. They are generally confidential. But, this template contract, section 10.B.ii, just prohibits “offensive” performance, which is obviously subject to interpretation and varies depending on your audience.
