Freedom of Speech

Why is it that artists think freedom of speech only goes one way? In New York, a private art show including a painting depicting President Bush using monkeys was shut down by the show managers. The artist behind the painting was disturbed, calling the decision to shut the show down "a blatant act of censorship", and said, "This is much deeper than art. This is fundamental American rights, freedom of speech." In 2003, the singer of the country music group Dixie Chicks made a negative comment about Bush in a concert in London and then had to face an angry response from country music fans who liked the president, which was portrayed as an assault on the singer's freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. An artist has the right to say what he or she wants. But consumers have the same right to express their displeasure or disagreement back to the artist. The artists don't seem to understand this. In their mind, when the artist makes his painting, that is free speech. When a gallery manager decides not to show the painting, that's censorship. When the singer expresses negative views of the president, that's free speech. When her fans criticize the band for making such comments, that's censorship.

First of all, censorship is an act of government. If the government passed a law saying singers could not express critical opinions of the president or create paintings mocking the president, that would be censorship. That has obviously not happened. No one has denied anyone's freedom of speech here. But, I as a consumer have an equal right to free speech, and if I want to express my disagreement by throwing away Dixie Chicks CDs or shutting down an art show (if I were the manager), that is my right. Were I an art show manager, I am not obligated to show some piece of art. Were I a fan of the Dixie Chicks, I am not obligated to support their singer's views.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to express one's views without consequence or response from the listener.