The Classical Chat Thread

[Todd]

Again, though you deny it, you are basically saying there is no consequences to people's behavior.

I'm not saying that at all.  There should be harm or risk associated with speech or expression before punishment should be meted out.  Punishing people for harmless behavior is absurd.  What harm have the tweets in question caused?

And I am not so sure she doesn't pose a risk (depending on your point of view). Ukraine has essentially been at war with Russia the past year. Your view of potential risk could be quite different if you lived there.

Perhaps you can elaborate on what risk Ms Lisista's posts pose to people in Ukraine.  Hinting at something nebulous doesn't suffice.

The TSO has not supressed her freedom of expression

It has.  It is not allowing her to perform because of her opinions.  You wrote that no one is stopping her from performing her craft, whereas the indisputable fact is that her appearance was cancelled.

[chasmaniac]

If she is legally regarded as an employee (even on a short-term basis) of the TSO, they have the right to discipline her for actions that bring her employer into disrepute. Like it or don't, all employees face this in Ontario and every other jurisdiction I've ever heard of.

[jlaurson]

How is her tweeting an opinion about what is happening in her home country "on the TSO's dime"?  She did not make the comments from the stage or at a TSO press event, but used her personal Twitter account.  The events are unrelated and the TSO overreacted in my opinion.

Well, donors to the TSO threatened to not donate, if she were to appear. That's the story behind the story. OTHER people overreacted ... the then TSO bungled. They could have cancelled it, alright, but would have had to go head-on with the truth to the public: We've had complaints... they might be financially painful for us... VL is not an important enough artist to make a stand about free speech now... so we've paid her, asked her not to play, and will find someone else.

[mc ukrneal]

That is just factually incorrect.  At-will employment is not even universal in the US, let alone other countries, and even in at-will jurisdictions, it is not that easy except in the context of layoffs.  Were only firing people as easy as you suggest. 

How is her tweeting an opinion about what is happening in her home country "on the TSO's dime"?  She did not make the comments from the stage or at a TSO press event, but used her personal Twitter account.  The events are unrelated and the TSO overreacted in my opinion.   

Clearly, my argument is for work in a state with at-will employment. That said, a private company can essentially fire you for your politics (note private - not public). Here are some examples:
http://molawyersmedia.com/2012/05/01/commentary-your-political-affiliation-can-get-you-fired/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/04/talking-politics-at-work-can-get-you-fired/ (note in this one there is the following quote (which was new to me as well):

Employees can also be sanctioned for political speech they put in emails or on social media during the workday

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html

You may not feel this is right, but the employer has the right. Public employers are a different matter.

[Pat B]

And I am not so sure she doesn't pose a risk (depending on your point of view). Ukraine has essentially been at war with Russia the past year. Your view of potential risk could be quite different if you lived there.

FTR she is a mixed-heritage Russian-Ukrainian who has lived in the USA for 20+ years and is now an American citizen. I doubt her twitter trolling had much real impact -- though the publicity from the cancellation has gained her a bunch of followers (1000 since yesterday).

What the TSO should have done was quietly allow the concert to happen, and privately assure the relevant donors that they would not invite her back. Instead, they embroiled themselves in controversy, granted her victim status, and still have to pay her fee.

[mc ukrneal]

I'm not saying that at all.  There should be harm or risk associated with speech or expression before punishment should be meted out.  Punishing people for harmless behavior is absurd.  What harm have the tweets in question caused?

This is a threshold you are creating. I am not saying that. We're talking about a private employer who has the right not to employ someone based on their politics.

Perhaps you can elaborate on what risk Ms Lisista's posts pose to people in Ukraine.  Hinting at something nebulous doesn't suffice.

They are at war. She could be considered a traitor (if she were Ukrainian citizen). Her activities undermine the state of Ukraine. Blah blah blah. Perhaps you should read up on US historial examples, for example, Charles Schenck (spelling?), who was convicted of espionage for distributing leaflets against the draft (WWI). These things are not unheard of (even if you think it a stretch).

It has.  It is not allowing her to perform because of her opinions.  You wrote that no one is stopping her from performing her craft, whereas the indisputable fact is that her appearance was cancelled.

The term 'freedom of expression' seems clear to me to mean speech, but I wonder if you mean livlihood. Freedom of speech has not been changed in any way, her rights have not changed. Right to a livlihood is not altered except that she cannot play for TSO. She is free to express her craft/playing where anyone will pay her (or she can set up shop on the street I suppose, but pianos are heavy)...

[Todd]

Clearly, my argument is for work in a state with at-will employment.

I work in an at-will state, and firing people is nowhere near as easy as you argue.  I know this from experience.  And that's at an, at best, mid-size (around 50 people) non-union company.  At large non-union companies it can take months to fire someone, and at union shops it can take years.  For a small shop with maybe ten people, firing people is pretty easy, though the risk of lawsuits is ever-present, so even small companies formulate well documented policies and then follow them.  Only the most egregious behavior (eg, violence at work, yelling at customers, etc) will generally result in immediate termination.

You may not feel this is right, but the employer has the right. Public employers are a different matter.

I'm very well aware that private companies are not beholden to the same standards as public employers.  They needn't be.  And if someone is posting opinions, any opinions, using company resources (that is, using the internet instead of working), then termination is acceptable.  There absolutely should be safeguards for behavior during non-work hours, and in some areas there may be at some point, and morals clauses should not be mandatory for non-executive level employees.  Those are battles to be fought.

[jochanaan]

...The term 'freedom of expression' seems clear to me to mean speech, but I wonder if you mean livlihood. Freedom of speech has not been changed in any way, her rights have not changed. Right to a livlihood is not altered except that she cannot play for TSO. She is free to express her craft/playing where anyone will pay her (or she can set up shop on the street I suppose, but pianos are heavy)...

Yet by doing as they have done, the Toronto Symphony may well have opened the door for other orchestras to "follow the bandwagon" and listen to the Philistines who demand that only "politically-correct" artists be allowed to play with major orchestras.  The TSO may "have the right," but that does not necessarily make it right.

[mc ukrneal]

I work in an at-will state, and firing people is nowhere near as easy as you argue.  I know this from experience.  And that's at an, at best, mid-size (around 50 people) non-union company.  At large non-union companies it can take months to fire someone, and at union shops it can take years.  For a small shop with maybe ten people, firing people is pretty easy, though the risk of lawsuits is ever-present, so even small companies formulate well documented policies and then follow them.  Only the most egregious behavior (eg, violence at work, yelling at customers, etc) will generally result in immediate termination.

Union is a different ball of wax. Put them to the side. My experience in at will states has been a bit different than yours, but I know some find it as hard as you describe or even harder. Thing is, it is a piece of cake compared to many European countries (for example).

I'm very well aware that private companies are not beholden to the same standards as public employers.  They needn't be.  And if someone is posting opinions, any opinions, using company resources (that is, using the internet instead of working), then termination is acceptable.  There absolutely should be safeguards for behavior during non-work hours, and in some areas there may be at some point, and morals clauses should not be mandatory for non-executive level employees.  Those are battles to be fought.

Indeed.

[Karl Henning]

We refuse to deliver pizza to a TSO concert with a Ukrainian-American soloist!

[Todd]

We're talking about a private employer who has the right not to employ someone based on their politics.

Is the TSO private, or is it public-private?  And what are the laws in Canada?  I was quite clear that the existing standards are far too onerous, and far too open to arbitrary standards.  You appear to prefer arbitrary standards. 

They are at war.

She is not a Ukrainian citizen.  Her tweets pose no risk to Ukraine.  Your argument is not relevant.

Your attempt at a history lesson is amusing, but you see, I am opposed to laws like the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act.  Those laws allow the US government to apply arbitrary and capricious standards to speech and other First Amendment protections.  And until the Obama Administration, they were mostly ignored.  They also do not apply to the TSO.

The term 'freedom of expression' seems clear to me to mean speech, but I wonder if you mean livlihood. Freedom of speech has not been changed in any way, her rights have not changed. Right to a livlihood is not altered except that she cannot play for TSO. She is free to express her craft/playing where anyone will pay her (or she can set up shop on the street I suppose, but pianos are heavy)...

It is freedom of speech that I am most concerned about.  I use the term "expression" to expand it to other forms of communication - music, dancing, etc.  Ms Lisista was deprived of a forum for political reasons.  The TSO suppressed art on political grounds.  You appear to support that.  I do not.

Union is a different ball of wax. Put them to the side. My experience in at will states has been a bit different than yours, but I know some find it as hard as you describe or even harder. Thing is, it is a piece of cake compared to many European countries (for example).

Shifting the goal posts, I see.

[aquablob]

The Internet.

Nice one!

[aquablob]

I do think it's important in discussions like this one to be clear about whether we're debating legality or ethics. "Did the TSO have the legal right to do what they did?" is a different question from "Did the TSO do the right thing?" (Of course, in either case I'm right and you're wrong.)

[mc ukrneal]

Is the TSO private, or is it public-private?  And what are the laws in Canada?  I was quite clear that the existing standards are far too onerous, and far too open to arbitrary standards.  You appear to prefer arbitrary standards. 

What I prefer is irrelevent. The question is whether they have the right to do it (even if you don't like it).

She is not a Ukrainian citizen.  Her tweets pose no risk to Ukraine.  Your argument is not relevant.

You are welcome to think so. 

Your attempt at a history lesson is amusing, but you see, I am opposed to laws like the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act.  Those laws allow the US government to apply arbitrary and capricious standards to speech and other First Amendment protections.  And until the Obama Administration, they were mostly ignored.  They also do not apply to the TSO.

Whether you are opposed or not has no bearing.

It is freedom of speech that I am most concerned about.  I use the term "expression" to expand it to other forms of communication - music, dancing, etc.  Ms Lisista was deprived of a forum for political reasons.  The TSO suppressed art on political grounds.  You appear to support that.  I do not.

Well, she has herself to blame and no one else. You sure do like to be dramatic with terms like 'supressed art' and 'deprived of a forum'. It looks like her tweets have added 1000 followers, so I guess her forum has actually expanded.

[mc ukrneal]

I do think it's important in discussions like this one to be clear about whether we're debating legality or ethics. "Did the TSO have the legal right to do what they did?" is a different question from "Did the TSO do the right thing?" (Of course, in either case I'm right and you're wrong.)

Well said!

[Ken B]

I guess I am in total disagreement and late to the party.

The TSO have failed in one area - consistency. They let Gergiev conduct and fire this pianist.

Organizations (public or private) are not required to support artists (or employees) and are free to dismiss them at will. It is kind of stupid for artists to have strong public positions on political issues as they eventually run afoul of someone. This behavior is nothing new in the World (Dixie Chicks anyone), so all of this thrashing about censorship seems overly dramatic.

In any case, shouldn't we also be evaluating her tweets? Here is a link to some of them: http://imgur.com/gallery/gDJLo. Can't really say that they are particularly worth supporting or giving her a forum for them.

By the way, they have not infringed on her free speech in any way. She is still free to say whatever she wants.

If I had a ticket, was I affected in any way?

[Ken B]

Yet by doing as they have done, the Toronto Symphony may well have opened the door for other orchestras to "follow the bandwagon" and listen to the Philistines who demand that only "politically-correct" artists be allowed to play with major orchestras.  The TSO may "have the right," but that does not necessarily make it right.

Right. "The personal is political" is the very definition of fascism.

[mc ukrneal]

If I had a ticket, was I affected in any way?

Probably not. Lost time perhaps (assuming you could get refund or something of equal value). Maybe disappointment at not hearing the Rach concerto.

[Ken B]

Probably not. Lost time perhaps (assuming you could get refund or something of equal value). Maybe disappointment at not hearing the Rach concerto.

So no I wasn't affected but I lost time and was disappointed.
Cue Inigo Montoya ...

[Karl Henning]

So no I wasn't affected but I lost time and was disappointed.

http://www.youtube.com/v/R97TsVDC1BY