The Classical Chat Thread

[mc ukrneal]

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

When you put it that way... It depends on what you mean by affected. Was there any impact whatsoever? Yes. Did it affect your worldview. I don't think so. Would I pesonally have been affected? No. Would others? Maybe.

[Ken B]

When you put it that way... It depends on what you mean by affected. Was there any impact whatsoever? Yes. Did it affect your worldview. I don't think so. Would I pesonally have been affected? No. Would others? Maybe.

My point is this. You see it as the TSO standing up for Truth, Justice, and the Kievian Way. I see it as the TSO board grandstanding and inflicting their views on subscribers. I can make up my own damn mind about whether I want to watch a Putinist pianist or not. Not just Putin. I don't want the political invading every space of public, or private, life. I don't want Support the RFRA or Repeal the RFRA protesters taking over concerts, movies, my dining room. Likewise I don't want pro or anti Putinists. Punishing people who don't agree with you, especially over issues where you play no role, is a bad habit.

[mc ukrneal]

My point is this. You see it as the TSO standing up for Truth, Justice, and the Kievian Way. I see it as the TSO board grandstanding and inflicting their views on subscribers. I can make up my own damn mind about whether I want to watch a Putinist pianist or not. Not just Putin. I don't want the political invading every space of public, or private, life. I don't want Support the RFRA or Repeal the RFRA protesters taking over concerts, movies, my dining room. Likewise I don't want pro or anti Putinists. Punishing people who don't agree with you, especially over issues where you play no role, is a bad habit.

I understand.

[Todd]

I do think it's important in discussions like this one to be clear about whether we're debating legality or ethics.

Clearly ethics.  The TSO had the legal right to do what it did.  I never argued it did not.  But they should not have done it.  It would be nice if one outcome of this was expanded legal protection for speech and expression.  That will not happen.

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

Then you obviously missed the whole point.  I never stated that the TSO couldn't do what they did, but that they should not have.  I then outlined the types of more liberal guidelines defining limits to freedom of expression I would prefer to see in place.  You have made it clear that you desire "consequences" for tweets and other forms of expression you find objectionable.  Unless actual harm or risk is involved, I do not.

Well, she has herself to blame and no one else.

No, she can blame the TSO.

It looks like her tweets have added 1000 followers, so I guess her forum has actually expanded.

I suppose that depends on how much weight you give Twitter followers.  In your case, apparently quite a lot.

This situation is very clearly a case of a few people not wanting a performer to perform because of her political views.  The performer had to be punished for naughty tweets.  No harm was done to anyone, there was no risk of anything other than perhaps dissatisfied sniffs from a few elderly patrons.  But something had to be done to assuage the concerns of a few very righteous people. 

The most ridiculous part of the whole thing is that the TSO found a better pianist as a replacement, but he withdrew, and the piece will not be played at all.  If I were a ticket holder and found out that Stewart Goodyear got the gig, I would have been thrilled.   

[aquablob]

Clearly ethics.  The TSO had the legal right to do what it did.  I never argued it did not.

To be clear, my comment wasn't aimed at you or anybody else in particular.

(FWIW, I agree with you that the TSO made a bad call here that sets an ugly precedent.)

[Todd]

To be clear, my comment wasn't aimed at you or anybody else in particular.

I didn't take it as such.  I took it as an opportunity to clarify the difference between what is legal and what is right.

[jlaurson]

Clearly ethics.  The TSO had the legal right to do what it did.  I never argued it did not.  But they should not have done it.  It would be nice if one outcome of this was expanded legal protection for speech and expression.  That will not happen.


The most ridiculous part of the whole thing is that the TSO found a better pianist as a replacement, but he withdrew, and the piece will not be played at all.  If I were a ticket holder and found out that Stewart Goodyear got the gig, I would have been thrilled.

1.) Well, with any luck the blowback on this will be so hard and uncomfortable, that the TSO will think twice, next time a patron calls and blathers about someone violating human rights on Twitter and that therefore they should can the performance, take the loss, take the blame, and feel righteous.

Or at least they can learn their PR lesson and do it only if the donor is clearly worth it (and willing to be pointed to, in an unambiguous way, for the TSO's reasoning).

I, for one, hope that they have gotten (and will continue to get) burned quite notably over that appalling "protect our customers from opinions that might be offensive to someone" 'argument'. Next they'll cancel a performance because the clarinet soloist once refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Ugh!

2.) Stewart Goodyear ended up with egg on his face, too, with that obnoxious post that started nice, got gooey in the middle, and then ended up being soggy-sappy maudlin trip in the end. And yes, more interesting pianist... although in that repertoire, Lisitia might just about be able to offer a leveled the playing field.

[Todd]

2.) Stewart Goodyear ended up with egg on his face, too, with that obnoxious post that started nice, got gooey in the middle, and then ended up being soggy-sappy maudlin trip in the end.

His line about being "bullied" was a bit much.

[Ken B]

Offenbach's third cousin called a gay man a name. Offenbach failed to disown this third cousin, and did in fact attend that third cousin's wedding. This outrageous behavior by Offenbach, endorsing anti-gay slurs and creating an unsafe envoironment for gays, has led Neal's employer to fire him for his tag line. Neal was not affected. The only issue, we all agree, is whether this was legal. In Neal's state I mean. God knows about France.

[mc ukrneal]

Clearly ethics.  The TSO had the legal right to do what it did.  I never argued it did not.  But they should not have done it.  It would be nice if one outcome of this was expanded legal protection for speech and expression.  That will not happen.

Nope.

Then you obviously missed the whole point.  I never stated that the TSO couldn't do what they did, but that they should not have.  I then outlined the types of more liberal guidelines defining limits to freedom of expression I would prefer to see in place.  You have made it clear that you desire "consequences" for tweets and other forms of expression you find objectionable.  Unless actual harm or risk is involved, I do not.

I never said I 'desire' consequences. What I am saying is that everything in life has consequences (everything we post included). You have made your standard clear - I just don't agree with it.

No, she can blame the TSO.

Oh? They wrote the tweet?

I suppose that depends on how much weight you give Twitter followers.  In your case, apparently quite a lot.

This situation is very clearly a case of a few people not wanting a performer to perform because of her political views.  The performer had to be punished for naughty tweets.  No harm was done to anyone, there was no risk of anything other than perhaps dissatisfied sniffs from a few elderly patrons.  But something had to be done to assuage the concerns of a few very righteous people. 

The most ridiculous part of the whole thing is that the TSO found a better pianist as a replacement, but he withdrew, and the piece will not be played at all.  If I were a ticket holder and found out that Stewart Goodyear got the gig, I would have been thrilled.

You like to twist words a lot. The fact that she has more twitter followers is now something I apparently put quite a lot of weight on (sarcasm intended here). Thanks for letting me know.

You've summarized it with your slant. I get it.

[Todd]

Oh? They wrote the tweet?

No, they cancelled her appearance.  That is one of the established facts in this situation.

Out of curiosity, what standard do you advocate?

[mc ukrneal]

No, they cancelled her appearance.  That is one of the established facts in this situation.

Out of curiosity, what standard do you advocate?

Haven't really spent a whole lot of time on that one...

[Ken B]

No, they cancelled her appearance.  That is one of the established facts in this situation.

Out of curiosity, what standard do you advocate?

Bad tweet, 100 lashes
Awful tweet, cut off the left hand
Horrible tweet, be thrown from a tall building

[Todd]

Bad tweet, 100 lashes
Awful tweet, cut off the left hand
Horrible tweet, be thrown from a tall building

This strikes me as grossly unfair.  All tweets are horrible.  Do you really advocate e-genocide?

[Karl Henning]

This strikes me as grossly unfair.  All tweets are horrible.

Oh!  I hope not all the tweets I sent today were horrible!

[mc ukrneal]

I find it a bit strange that you seem all for chilling the free expression of political opinions with consequences like what the TSO did.  In the US there is the idea that the best response to "offensive" speech is more speech (i.e. alternative opinions) not less (i.e. chilling  the offensive).

But she is free to say whatever she wants. AS long as it is not a lie, racist, etc, she is free to continue saying it. Why shouldn't any organization have the right to distance itself from statements they do not want to be associated with (within the law) by simply cutting the relationship with the person making the statements?

[Todd]

AS long as it is not a lie, racist, etc, she is free to continue saying it.

What types of lies should people be prohibited from saying, in your estimation?  And what, precisely, constitutes racist speech?  And most important of all, what is "etc"? 

[Ken B]

I find it a bit strange that you seem all for chilling the free expression of political opinions with consequences

I on the other hand expected no less.

[mc ukrneal]

What types of lies should people be prohibited from saying, in your estimation?  And what, precisely, constitutes racist speech?  And most important of all, what is "etc"? 

It doesn't matter. What's important is that she can keep writing her tweets.

[Ken B]

It doesn't matter. What's important is that she can keep writing her tweets.

Until she tweets something you think is a lie, or racist. Like perhaps calling a cheapskate niggardly. Then it's open season. And she can't tweet anymore.