Florida’s Right to Rock Act might be double-edged sword
The Right to Rock Act advancing in the Florida Legislature aims to address another issue realted to our still-simmering culture wars — a First Amendment question of whether entertainment venues can cancel shows due to an artist’s expressed political views.
Senate Bill 1206 and House Bill 15 would stop venues that are publicly funded or built with public money from breaking performance contracts based on the performer’s lawful exercise of freedom of speech. The act states that an “owner or operator of a public venue may not cancel a live performance of an artist, a performer, or a musical group because of their … personal beliefs.” If there is a cancellation, “venue owners or operators who violate the prohibition bear the costs enumerated in the related contract with the artist, performer, or musical group whose performance was canceled.”
At first blush, the act seems like a way to protect the right of artists from censorship during these polarized, weaponized political times, especially in a presidential election year.
But the implications of the bill are hazy. And more vagueness in legislation is not what Florida needs.
CANCEL CULTURE
The Florida First Amendment Foundation says the bill is a bad idea. It essentially would give preference to the rights of one party, the artist, by disregarding the rights of another, the venue sponsoring the appearance, Robert “Bobby” Block, the foundation’s executive director, told the Editorial Board.
As Block noted: “This bill is supposed to fight cancel culture, but with another type of cancel culture.”
In other words, Block said, the bill could wind up placing the venue and its First Amendment rights in peril.
There are practical concerns, too. What if there are threats of violence, or hate speech, or violence and the venue cannot afford the security? It must go ahead with event — or cancel but still pay the artist.
The foundation opposes the bill’s passage. So do we.
Unfortunately, this bill has some traction. Last week, the Senate’s version, SB 1206, sponsored by Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, was heard by the Commerce and Tourism committee. The bill advanced on a 4-1 vote.
The bill’s House sponsor, Sen. Joel Rudman (R-Navarre), insists the legislation protects performers’ First Amendment rights and prevents politicized “cancel culture” from running amok. Rudman, it should be noted, plays in a classic rock cover band that was apparently trolled on Eventbrite by people — he attributed it to the “woke mob” — signing up for a concert with fake emails and names, throwing off the headcount, according to his Facebook post.
Block emphasized that how the law would be interpreted and enforced is key. Yes, it would only apply to venues that receive public funding. But what exactly would that mean?
Under the act, if a major artists like Taylor Swift, whose politics are making news, performs in a private venue that doesn’t use public funding, that performance would be exempt. Under those circumstances, the same would be true for a performance by someone like ex-Pink Floyd lead singer Roger Waters, who has faced accusations of antisemitism related to his pro-Palestine views.
‘PUBLIC’ VENUES
And yet venues at public college campuses or “owned by or rented to a governmental entity, school, college or university” would be subject to the new requirements.
As Block asked, would a venue be considered “public” if was built with bond money, state grants or federal funding? That’s a valid question.
The Right to Rock bill is a double-edged sword. If you protect the right of artists to perform without regard to their political views, you do that for everyone. That means it would apply even to performers whose views — and performances — may be highly offensive.
This is an unnecessary bill that should be sidelined. It’s hard to know which venues it would apply to. It attempts to stop so-called cancel culture by canceling the rights of others. If it goes forward, it’s likely to wind up in the same place as so many other Florida measures: court.