NY Times stupidity

The NY Times printed an editorial today entitled Desperadoes that clearly illustrates what is supposed to pass for intelligence these days. (Obligatory login required.) The article argues that somehow Linda Ronstadt's rights have been violated. Here's the crux of the argument:

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.

Perhaps her praise for Mr. Moore, even at the very end of her show, did ruin the performance for some people. They have a right to voice their disapproval - to express their opinion as Ms. Ronstadt expressed hers and to ask for a refund. But if their intemperate behavior began to worry the management, then they were the ones who should have been thrown out and told never to return, not Ms. Ronstadt, who threatened, after all, only to sing.

Of course Ms. Ronstadt has a right to express her political opinion from the stage. Doesn't that go without saying? After all, she did just that!

What the writer is objecting to is the reaction to Ronstadt expressing her opinion by the management of the Aladdin. Somehow, in his fantasy world, the owner of the establishment has no rights at all. Even if every guest present was offended, the owners of the Aladdin are just supposed to do nothing at all?

The left has complained constantly about "McCarthyism" or "suppression of their First Amendment rights" when the patrons of entertainers decide to take a walk because they're offended by the performer's expression of their political views during a concert. So, in their world, the only one who really has a First Amendment right is the entertainer. The audience is supposed to shut up and take it and just not come back if they disagree. (Say, has anyone heard from the Dixie Chicks lately?) And the owners of the establishment are supposed to do nothing at all.

If I pay to see someone sing, I do not want an exposition of their political views unless it's expressly included in the playbill so I know before I pay my money what I'm getting. The entertainer has the right to speak up anyway, and I have an equal right to demand a refund, shout at the entertainer, boo, hiss or do whatever else I think is appropriate to express my displeasure. And the owner of the concert hall has the right to escort the entertainer off the stage and ask them never to come back.

In the liberal's world, I have only limited rights to protest, simply because I disagree with their political philosophy. And the owner of the concert hall has none.

Orwell would be proud.