|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.82.96.150
In Reply to: RE: More. . . posted by Chris from Lafayette on April 07, 2015 at 10:54:24
I've never understood how some people (and this is not directed at you, Andy, Scott or anyone else in this thread) endlessly argue that private enterprises should be free to do as they choose -- until a private enterprise does something they disagree with.This is not censorship, at least not in the American constitutional "freedom of speech" sense. The Toronto Symphony is a private enterprise and presumably can book or not book anyone they please (though Canadian law is not my area of expertise, I think it's similar in this area) just as Sony Pictures can choose not to release a satire about Kim Jong-Un or theaters can choose not to screen it. This kind of legal "private censorship" is routine and doesn't get much press except in extreme or excessively obvious cases.
People who don't like it should keep that in mind when considering the issue of government funding of the arts.
Edits: 04/07/15Follow Ups:
So, should the Toronto Symphony not perform works by proto-Nazi Richard Wagner? Or should other cultural institutions forbid performances of Gesualdo? - after all, Gesualdo murdered two people. More:
I have no idea how - or if - the pianist's tweets affected ticket sales. Wonder if many people asked for refunds after her tweets.
This is a classical music crowd. 90% don't know what twitter is.
nt
The spiritual charter of any cultural institution, important or otherwise, must have certain words etched between the operational lines, including "freedom of expression" and "don't cave to special interests."
Alas, when we reduce government funding of cultural institutions and expect them to operate more like private enterprises in the competitive free market, they do precisely that. Where do these institutions get the money they need to survive? From wealthy individuals, businesses, and foundations. That is, special interests. As those special interests have their own agendas, the money seldom comes with no strings attached.
It's not censorship it's discrimination. That makes it wrong. And no, private entities do not have the right to discriminate.
Sure they do, and they do all the time. Have you asked to perform with the San Francisco Symphony? Would asking entitle you to perform with them or would they have the "right" to discriminate about who performs with them? Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. is just plain wrong, but expressing controversial views is not one of those.
Dave
Not hiring me to play with the SFSO isn't discrimination. That is about job qualification. Discrimination is, as you say, based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. "Etc" includes....political affiliation and beliefs. A great example would be McCarthy and the un-American activities committee and the artists who were black listed for their political affiliations. I don't know about Canada but here in the USA we are actually protected by federal law against political discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
" It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation."
IMO discrimination based on political beliefs is wrong. and again I say shame on the Toronto Symphony for their act of discrimination against Valentina Lisitsa. If the L.A. Phil were to do that they would get quite an earful from me as a a three time subscriber.
Tell that to Lois Lerner and the IRS.
David Duke was a politician. He served as a state representative and ran for several other political offices including POTUS. He's also a white separatist/supremist and an anti-semite. Can a Jewish African-American business owner who discovers an employee is a follower of Duke and has been distributing anti-black/white separatist/anti-semitic pamphlets after work urging people to vote for David Duke fire him/her, or is the biz owner required to employ people who are working towards his societal demise? Would you mail a protest letter to the businessman if he fired that employee?
A Ukranian-American owns a grocery store whose clientele is predominantly fellow Ukranian-Americans who believe Russia's actions in eastern Ukraine amount to disgusting thuggery and a clear violation of international law and their homeland's sovereignty. He - as well as his clientele - discovers his capable night manager has been tweeting exactly what the pianist tweeted. The store's Ukranian-American former clientele now boycott the store and the grocery store is losing so much money it is on the verge of bankruptcy. You would say that grocery store owner is required to continue employing the night manager and if you shopped at that store you'd protest if the store owner fired him?
As you can no doubt surmise I could provide many more similar scenarios. Its yet to be determined if the so-called "religious freedom" acts a number of states have passed will stand.
Of course I realize this pianist doesn't inject her political views into her performances. But artists who have done that and/or expressed certain views outside of their gig paid a price for it. I believe the Smothers Brothers won their case against CBS in the end, but their show was cancelled, and IIRC CBS was not required to re-hire them (though strangely enough, they later did just that). Bill Maher was fired, and IIRC Dan Rather's exit from CBS was, ahh, "mutually agreed" - to mention a few.
It is a tricky issue and supporting the rights of people we don't agree with is, IMO, the true test of our support of civil rights.
" Would you mail a protest letter to the businessman if he fired that employee?"
Gosh I doubt I would mail a protest letter. I can'tr police the world. But I would consider it wrong of that business owner to fire his employee. I don't think civil rights are exclusive to the people that I personally think are "the good guys."
It reminds me of something my dad used to say. "There are two kinds of people in the world, good people and bad people. And the 'good' people decide who is who." I am sure the real meaning of that is not lost on you. Yeah it's complicated. But IMO we keep it simple when we make civil rights universal. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that many people fighting for very righteous causes have been looked at as villains and terrorists by their contemporaries at some point in time. Call me a bleeding heart liberal but I would rather er on the side of defending everyone's civil rights than er on the side of denying anyone their civil rights. I think this is especially true with artists who have often been beacons of light in the midst of civil unrest and political battles.
I think what the Toronto Symphony did was wrong.
Well said. And that's why only government employees are protected from discrimination based on their political beliefs.
Two problems with that, Scott, at least under US law: (1) Ms. Lisitsa is an independent contractor, and not an employee, and so the federal employment discrimination law you cite would not apply to her; (2) Only federal employees or employees of federally-assisted programs are protected from discrimination based on political affiliation.
New York State, and especially New York City, have their own more stringent anti-employment discrimination laws, but few other US jurisdictions do.
Sorry, but if you want private free enterprise with minimum government "interference", you'll have to accept the right of orchestras to refuse to hire Ms. Lisitsa due to her political views. They have that right.
I definitely don't want free enterprise with minimal government involvement. That is the sort of thing that would allow businesses to put back the signs that used to say no coloreds allowed. No thanks. We need government intervention unfortunately to protect civil rights. Shame on the Toronto Symphony.
but more people need to realize that the whole "private enterprise is good, government regulation is bad" crusade is an over-simplistic and even outright bad idea in many contexts, including the arts. And trust me, I have plenty of experience with the efficiency of private enterprise and the inefficiency of government.I'm glad you haven't been taken in by the crusaders.
Edits: 04/08/15
The Toronto Symphony Orchestra's decision to cancel performances by a Ukrainian-born pianist over what it calls her "deeply offensive language" is part of a troubling phenomenon that could lead artists to self-censor, civil rights advocates said Tuesday.
While it's not uncommon for workers to be penalized for expressing opinions on social media that reflect poorly on their employer, it's difficult to make that case for Lisitsa, said Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
"It's hard to see the connection between what she said and what the duties of her job are and how it would affect it," Zwibel said. "If the idea is just that the orchestra wants to avoid controversy, I don't find that a particularly compelling reason. The fact that maybe there would be some people protesting is, again, not a reason to let her go," she said.
"I think there is a problem with the message that this sends to artists that they may have trouble getting jobs or keeping jobs if they express views that are unpopular or controversial."
. . .
Lisitsa performed in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont., on Saturday and organizers said they were saddened by the controversy.
Christine Mori, founder and artistic director for Bravo Niagara!, said she was aware of Lisitsa's tweets before booking the concert, but didn't feel it warranted intervention.
"I knew that there might be some backlash because of her political statements that she was making, but we did not get involved in that and I do believe in freedom of speech," she said Tuesday.
"She did not speak politically at all at the concert...and we presented her as Valentina the pianist."
Mori said she hoped Lisitsa's other Canadian performances would still go ahead.
This just isn't a freedom of speech issue, as I said. People take for granted the great public importance of what a major symphony orchestra does in a case like this or in general, but when it comes to public (i.e., government) funding of such artistic institutions, they are much less enthusiastic.
Well, guess what? That leaves orchestras much more subject to the whims of wealthy patrons, like the one who may have been behind the decision to cancel Ms. Lisitsa's performances, according to her. (Though I think Rick W's explanation is more likely.) That's the free enterprise system at work. And there is nothing illegal about it.
Even though I understand that everybody's favorite mayor, Rob Ford, voted against funding the orchestra! ;-)
Really, I don't think there's anything "faulty" about the CBC analysis - it's just looking at the situation from a different point of view. But let's let Valentina speak for herself (accent is pretty heavy!):
Of course, as you might imagine, RT is having a field day with this! ;-)
If they have to kowtow to a wealthy patron to that extent. The faulty part (at least under US law) is the idea that anything illegal happened. An orchestra is entitled to steer clear of PR pitfalls and political controversies that could affect its fundraising. Now, a decision like this can backfire and do them more harm than good. I don't know if that will happen in this case, though.
Indeed! It's already reported that some Toronto Symphony patrons have cancelled their subscriptions. Probably not a critical mass yet, but you never know what may happen, especially if this thing drags on for a while.Some posts I've seen on other sites referred to the "good old days" of 2009, when pianist Krystian Zimerman harangued an audience in Disney Hall (just before the last piece on his concert) about US foreign policy, and admonished them to "get your hands off my country!", causing some listeners to walk out and others to applaud. To my knowledge, I don't know of any political rants from the stage on Valentina's part (at least so far!).
Edits: 04/18/15
Indeed, in 1971 Leonid Kogan actually refused to give a concert with the Pittsburgh Symphony because they had a "Russian defector" in their cello section. But when a performer goes public with controversial political views, he or she has to be prepared to accept the backlash.
"Part of his disenchantment with the USA may be that with the stepped up militarization and security at US airports, it has become increasingly difficult to bring his piano into the country. In incidents in 2001 and 2006, one of his Steinway pianos was completely destroyed and another one damaged by security staff at New York's JFK airport."
Can you blame him?
And his absence from the U.S. since that incident has been self inflicted. I bet he would be welcomed back to Disney Hall if he were to express an interest.
NT
I'm all for free speech and don't want my *government* curtailing it. But this is about a private organization making what's probably a combination of a biz decision and moral stand. I presume if Toronto knew about the tweets when they booked her they had second thoughts due to pressure from their audience base and/or decided they just didn't want the orchestra to be associated in any way with the views expressed in her tweets.The artist in question in this case is free to continue her tweeting in Canada and elsewhere. Nobody is muzzling her. But IMO she has no inherent right to expect that expressing her political views will be necessarily completely free of business consequences. Would anybody here post to berate the Village Vanguard if their management cancelled a performance because they didn't want the club associated in any way with an artist who they discovered had repeatedly tweeted racist views?
Somehow I doubt she'd perform with a Ukranian-American conductor who had repeatedly tweeted his view that Russia is perpetrating a policy of blatant lies, thuggery, ethnic cleansing, territorial thievery and Putin was akin to Hitler. Would all those who berated Toronto's orchestra post to excoriate her for cancelling that booking?
Unlike what happens to artists like Pussy Riot in Russia, the Canadians aren't holding a bogus trial for her and putting her in prison. Hmm, wonder if she cancelled any performances in Russia to protest that.
Edits: 04/07/15
And fortunately, I can publicly support Valentina all I want without any consequences from the Toronto Symphony! ;-)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: