7/22/2004 08:30:18 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

The New York Times, apparently an avid supporter of Linda Ronstadt (who knew?) has decided to rewrite the First Amendment. Here's the moneyquote of utter ignorance

This behavior assumes that Ms. Ronstadt had no right to express a political opinion from the stage. It implies - for some members of the audience at least - that there is a philosophical contract that says an artist must entertain an audience only in the ways that audience sees fit. It argues, in fact, that an artist like Ms. Ronstadt does not have the same rights as everyone else.
 
I know not where to begin.  Guess what? Ms. Ronstadt indeed did not have a right to express a political opinion from the stage.  In fact, she did not have a constitutional right to even be on that stage. She certainly had a contractual right to be there (weakened somewhat by the fall of Lochner, a constitutional doctrine that the editorial board at the NYT certainly would oppose if they knew what it was), but when she uttered those assinine remarks about the demigod status of Michael Moore she likely violated the terms of her contract, which was to entertain, not offend. 

Whew.  That was just on the first sentence of that excerpt.

Second sentence.  So, the entertainer had more "rights" than the audience.  I'm not sure why, exactly, unless one holds an overinflated view of people who are blessed with well choreographed vocal cords.  The wording used is bothersome.  If the audience is not entertained in a way they see fit, they are in fact not entertained at all.   In short, sentence number two makes as much sense as a barrcuda attending a G8 Summit protest. 

Finally, sentence number three. The whopper of them all.  What rights do the rest of us have, or more particularly, what rights did that audience have, that Ms. Ronstadt did not?  If someone comes into my home, and insults my wife, or my dog, I certainly have a right to not let them sleep in my spare bedroom.  In fact, they don't get the futon.  They get kicked out (and can stay at that luxurious Family Inn just down the road).  What rights have been denied? In fact, private property rights have been vindicated, as are my free speech rights. Why would someone else's free speech rights be superior to mine? If the rights wash out, as they should, you go to the subquestion - is their a private property factor.  Then who trumps?  The metaphor extends precisely to Ms. Ronstadt's utterly stupid comments, and her breach of her contract with the Aladdin Hotel. 

The New York Times - always underperforming.

|||109054723845117454|||Gray Lady of Ignorance