Thursday, July 29, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Poor poor pitiful inbox

Ronstadt controversy elicits avalanche of impassioned viewpoints

I arrived at the office last Thursday morning, turned on the computer and called up my e-mail. A typical start to the workday, usually followed by half an hour of identifying the few legitimate e-mails lurking amid the spam. But the inbox looked a little different on this day. I was deluged with missives from people across the country who had something to say about my column on the controversy surrounding Linda Ronstadt's performance at the Aladdin.

Somehow, my Editor's Note column ["Let Freedom Ring--Except in Las Vegas"], posted on our website Wednesday afternoon, had found its way into the wacky world of Internet chatter. This happens every so often. A Mercury article gets pasted on a website dedicated to a specific topic and readers are encouraged to respond. Let's say, for example, that the Mercury prints a less-than-reverential piece about bluesman B.B. King. (This really happened a few years ago.) The derogatory article then shows up on a B.B. King fan site, prompting an avalanche of angry electronic boos and hisses.

Well, the Ronstadt column obviously vaulted well beyond the traditional Mercury readership, and it resulted in more than 30 e-mails by Thursday morning. The letters reflect a range of viewpoints, but all noodle around with the nuances of freedom--a refreshing exercise in democratic debate. We decided to print a variety of them here.--Geoff Schumacher

Linda Ronstadt was hired as a singer, not a political activist, and in becoming an activist she was providing entertainment that was not contracted. She was fired for poor timing and lack of judgment, not the content she spoke out about.

As a Libertarian, I deplore [filmmaker Michael] Moore and the liberals as well as the press who feel they are seeing Moore's work to "get the facts." Or those who haven't even seen the work expounding upon its virtues.

However, just because I don't like someone's views, I still defend their rights to say what they feel.

I have to say, however, that I would have been one of the folks who walked out of the performance and demanded my admission fee back. Just because I believe in one's freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to pay to hear someone express their views, especially if they are in sharp contrast to mine. Or even sit through it.

--Dusty Baker,

Waldport, Ore.

I don't believe for a second that you were upset because Linda Ronstadt was punished for excercising her freedom of speech. You were upset because she expressed a liberal viewpoint and was castigated for it.

If I'm wrong, then by all means show me the editorials you wrote supporting the freedom of speech of Dr. Laura, Trent Lott, John Rocker and Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, and I'll be happy to apologize.

--R. Gregg Reed

Your piece on freedom really strikes home. I appreciate your eloquence. It's frightening to know that we have given our freedom away so easily. Every American should see Fahrenheit 9/11 and make up their own mind, but I think many are afraid to do that. I, for one, believe we are in the midst of a religious war and I'm tired of being preached to by the religious right. The storm trooper group in the casino sounds like the oldtime vigilantes, and isn't that frightening. Please continue to speak out.

Long live Michael Moore, Linda Ronstadt and Geoff Schumacher.

--Susan Davis,

Sequim, Wash.

What about the freedom of speech of the casino to decide who would be performing at their place of business?

What I keep hearing is that those who oppose President Bush are the only ones with the right to freedom of speech.

If you agree with President Bush and the Republicans or are even (atheist forbid) Christian, then you are opposed to freedom of speech. What about your opposition's right to freedom of speech?

By the way, who cares what some so-called celebrity has for a political opinion? Because they are a celebrity that makes them more informed than me?

Give me a break. I am so tired of seeing Hollywood actors or singers using their "star power" to get on camera and tell me what their opinions are, as if they are facts when they are nothing more than OPINION and no better than my opinions, especially when they do not back up what they are saying with any facts.

Freedom of speech apparently only goes in one direction when you are a Democrat.

--David Muessemeyer,

Siloam Springs, Ark.

Its just nature exerting force to maintain equilibrium. It seems that you are surprised. Would you have jackbooted guards cracking the skulls of the patrons exercising their right to free speech? Today so-called "freedom of speech" ranges from political speech to pornography and even the Piss Christ. Let's say (that for now) we include walking out in disgust and tearing down some show bills that were ultimately destined for the trash anyway.

--Patrick Murtaugh

In regard to your "defense of freedom" and the Linda Ronstadt imbroglio, I offer a few comments.

Every time I hear someone in the music industry whine about the alleged trampling of First Amendment freedoms, I have to remind myself that I am hearing entertainers, not constitutional scholars, sing the blues. Nevertheless, you and Ronstadt (along with the Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam, Eminem and any other aggrieved artists) need to go back to school and retake a civics class. Your editorial is a particularly silly response, particularly from a newsman who should know better.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a provision that protects someone from suffering the consequences of their actions. The First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Take it from a history teacher: That means that Congress (i.e., the federal government) can't make laws abridging political speech. It DOES NOT mean that a private organization, company or business (like the Aladdin) lacks the right to sever a business relationship with someone who does not represent its interests. Just like in the case of Whoopi "I've Gotta Potty Mouth" Goldberg and Slimfast, the Aladdin has the constitutional right to say, "Adios--you blew it." Frankly, I consider Aladdin President Bill Timmins' decision a breath of fresh air in a town that has made a fortune from vulgarity and bad taste.

The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document. Ms. Ronstadt lives in a nation that provides the most generous political freedoms in human history. She has a right to say anything she wants about President Bush. She even has the right to be incredibly stupid. You and she should realize that along with that right comes the quite natural consequences of stupidity--not an abridgement of freedoms.

--Paul R. Huard,

White City, Ore.

Congratulations on your Editor's Note. You rang the Liberty Bell with this one.

We need more voices like yours to save our country from the imposed views and actions by this administration that declare dissent as disloyalty. In fact, as you point out--not an original view by the way, Jefferson expressed it also--it is an obligation to voice your dissent, not a crime.

Thanks for your words. Let's hope others pick up the chant.

--Jim Solt,

Boca Raton, Fla.

I read your apologia for Linda Ronstadt's performance, and all I can say is that you just don't get it. You also probably think the Dixie Chicks were A-OK for what they said in London a while back.

The issue that these entertainers (and apparently you) do not understand is that their time at the Big Hollywood Microphone is not based on their political insight. If it was, you would see them on Russert. All they are is a bunch of white people who feel really guilty about having made gobs and gobs of money from singing or acting, and who want to purge that feeling by making the rest of us feel miserable too. People do not want to hear much from entertainers other than entertainment. Unfortunately, people do want to hear the lurid details of the disasters in entertainers' personal lives, but that's a different matter.

No one is attempting to limit Linda Ronstadt's right to stand on the street corner and sing her song dedicated to Michael Moore. The First Amendment is about freedom from ARREST, not freedom from unhappy (and apparently boorish) patrons who were outraged at having paid good money to hear singing and instead got a dose of political speech.

I still will not buy Dixie Chicks CDs because they refuse to apologize for having insulted the presidency, and for having done it while in a foreign country. They admitted their "word choice was unfortunate," but that is half-assed weaseling.

The part you don't seem to get is this. I served in the Army during Vietnam to protect Linda Ronstadt and the Dixie Chicks from any fanatic (left or right, doesn't matter) who would dare try to limit their right to write or sing their songs in public or to spout their political viewpoint. I also served to defend the right of the audience to walk out.

What I didn't serve to defend is anybody's alleged right to force political speech on unwilling listeners. Why is it always the liberals who are doing the forcing? Perhaps you think we just don't get it. We get it, we just disagree and don't want to listen to any more of it.

By the way, the Aladdin is not a public space--it is a private, profit-making entertainment venue dedicated to keeping the paying customers happy. Piss off the customers and out you go, regardless of the reason.

Or are you proposing that I have a "right" of access to the Aladdin's stage to spout my viewpoint?

Good friends of mine died in Vietnam defending (perhaps misguidedly in retrospect) our Constitution. My brother-in-law served four tours and survived being shot twice. I wish you would quit trivializing their sacrifices with misplaced whining such as your current editorial.

--John L Geis,

Houston, Texas

Freedom of speech is just that, the freedom to speak. It is not freedom from the reactions of others. I have the feeling that if Toby Keith, for example, had voiced his support for President Bush in a similar venue and audience members had reacted negatively, you would be praising their actions as courageous and necessary. You seem to believe that such freedom only extends to those expressing messages you support. Such selective criticism is little more than thinly veiled PC censorship. Intellectual honesty demands more of an editor and publisher, or is that what "alternative" means in your title line?

--Marvin Bergevin

Linda Ronstadt was contracted by the casino to entertain. The casino advertised to and contracted with the public for a show of a specific content. As such, she was a paid employee and her obligation was to entertain the paying customers of the casino. This doesn't give her the right to use that time to make political commentaries outside the advertised scope of the show, especially since no prior notice of political content was presented to the customers. Her political view was thrust upon the customers of the casino without their consent. Ronstadt betrayed her customers and employer through a "bait and switch" tactic.

You apparently don't understand free speech. Ronstadt does not have an inherent right to say anything she wants, any time she wants, anywhere she wants, with impunity. She does have the right to stand outside on public property on her own time and present any political viewpoint she wishes. Conversely, this also gives others the right and opportunity to leave and not listen to her if they disagree with her politics.

Get real! Her free speech wasn't violated. She betrayed her customers and her employer. She was legitimately punished for betraying them.

--Mike Higgins

Thank you for your editorial about Linda Ronstandt and the whole Aladdin debacle. Thank you, most of all, for exercising good sense. I try not to make a habit of advertising my political and religious opinions, but I do believe people should not stoop to name-calling, insults and downright rude behavior when faced with the fact that not everybody subscribes to one single belief. Poor behavior is never justified.

In the end, people need to understand that if you don't have to like every aspect of a person to enjoy his or her music, acting, art, etc. Nowhere does it say that one has to be pro-war or support Bush to appreciate the beauty of Linda's pipes, or that her being anti-war and less than fond of Bush in any way negates her talent.

So, bravo to you, Mr. Schumacher! Thank you for your article--it made my day!

--Alice Shieh

Your article regarding Linda at the Aladdin was timely and right on the money. I have friends in the USA and we are all concerned that the neocons don't give a damn about amendments, U.S. citizens or freedom to speak your mind. The White House has become a symbol for the world to hate. Policy borders on terrorism whilst George makes decent folks vomit. Good for you for speaking up for all fair-minded citizens. That Texas loose cannon is unelectable.

--Michael Baker,

U.K.

What is it exactly about this situation don't you understand? Ms. Linda Ronstadt was paid to ENTERTAIN, not run a segment on political plugs and digs.

You have a unique position in your community; you have the ability to publish all of your thoughts and opinions very freely. As a matter of fact, did it cost you anything to run this article? If NO, and you're such a proponent of freedom of speech, why not let the good people of Las Vegas run commentaries for free in your paper?

If a typical citizen of the U.S. were to walk into any public venue, the Aladdin, a local library, a shopping mall, with a microphone, podium and a sound system and started ranting and raving about politics and current issues, they would be promptly removed. Why does a Hollywood actor or singer have the right then to "freely" express their opinions without people's consent?

I do support freedom of speech. However, there is a time and a place for everything.

--Michael Brown

Regarding Miss Ronstadt, she, like Michael Moore, has her finger squarely off the pulse of the average American. The days are far gone where the liberal elite in this country (entertainers in particular) need to explain the facts to us "simple folk." People didn't pay their hard-earned money to be tricked and misled into a political opinion fest. She abused her celebrity in order to have a captive audience to voice her personal political viewpoints to. The audience reacted collectively, as any individual would who has been lied too and misled. With anger.

--Eric Carlson

I watch C-SPAN, where I've noticed that the progressives in our country have done their share of "rabble-rousing." A few years ago, the surgeon general was giving a speech somewhere and an activist group of homosexuals yelled him down, I think because they wanted more AIDS money. This is discussing? Freedom of speech?

Very recently, the woman who left GW Bush to go back to Texas was promoting her book on C-SPAN, and when Q&A time came, the progressives (who had been booing and calling out during the speech) came to the mike, asking hostile questions or making accusative statements. They actually took over the Q&A period to the point where the friendly questioners hardly got to participate, and where the audience began to grow angry. Discussion? Freedom of speech?

There have been various conservative speakers who have had progressives in the audience yell out and boo.

Rational discussion? Freedom of speech? I also watch progressives' speeches and activities on C-SPAN, too, to get differing points of view, but I haven't seen conservatives doing the same kinds of disruptive actions.

Make no mistake about my own preferences. I wouldn't be stupid enough to waste my precious vote on any of these people on either side and haven't for the past 30-some years because they're two sides of the same coin. I'm just dismayed by the vehemence that people are displaying these days when dealing with those who have different opinions, as shown in your story about Ronstadt.

When Joan Baez's music became political in the '60s, I simply stopped buying her records (and lost the most beautiful female voice I've ever heard) because I don't like political music. Same for any artist of any stripe who gets political during general entertainment. It's different, of course, if they do this before an audience of like-minded people who have come to be converted. Entertainment is entertainment and politics is politics and never the twain should meet in my book.

--Betty Gettler,

Northeastern Pa.

You're a jackass!!! And your employer is foolish to think that you have any meaningful insight that would allow you to scold your readers...and us fools on the Internet who wasted our time reading your high school dribble about your perceived version of freedom.

--Chuck Dennis

My, my, my. How upset you seem to be. I think everyone here participated in their "fundamental right." All involved expressed their opinion--freedom of speech. No one stopped Ms. Ronstadt from voicing her opinion and nobody's stopping the casino from voicing its opinion via its actions. Things worked out just the way they do in everyday life. We all excercise discretion in our actions and what we say. Occasionally there are consequences, you know. Try telling your boss things he doesn't want to hear.

--Bill Conley

With regard to the Linda Ronstadt controversy at the Aladdin: I think that the behavior of some of her audience in reaction to her Michael Moore tribute was incredibly boorish, and it was even more boorish of the hotel to kick her off the premises the way it did.

However, it's worth mentioning that during this tour Ronstadt has given several statements to journalists about her political views, including: "It disturbs me to think that someone in the audience at the show is a right-wing Christian. It spoils my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."

Well, with that attitude, perhaps Ms. Ronstadt could understand how the rest of us feel when we go to see a performer whose work we admire and said performer offers an opinion that we consider not only mistaken but offensive. It spoils our enjoyment. We'd rather not know.

--James Gillen