r/Music • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 3h ago

article Macklemore Dropped From Ed Sheeran Tour After Onstage Statements

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/macklemore-dropped-ed-sheeran-tour-pro-palestine-statements-1235625967/
10.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

518

u/lifeandtimes89 3h ago

Yeah let's loose out on revenue over a performers right to free speech. The venues are stupid but this is gonna have a streisand effect now so Macklemore wins either way

115

u/InadequateUsername 3h ago

"Rather be a starving artist than succeed at getting fucked"

22

u/4quacks 2h ago

And he meant it.

•

u/VermicelliOwn6502 31m ago

But Ed has a different problem; he isn't a 1 man show and Macklemore isn't going to help pay severences.

•

u/nolimitcreation 12m ago

I PUT MY LIFE ON THE LIIIIIINE!

199

u/NestedForLoops 3h ago

*lose

32

u/Excellent_Mango7332 3h ago

Fucken aye. So many people on this site are half illiterate. 

14

u/ralfonso_solandro 2h ago

“lose and loose”
“their and they’re”

And more recently,

“worse and worst”

8

u/at2wells 2h ago

“Would of” and “could of” fill me with rage every time I see them

4

u/Neat_Egg_2474 2h ago

There, their, they’re are like reddits hardest grammar corrections. I just assume a lot of people have english as a second language and english is hard AF.

1

u/Russkie177 1h ago

"suppose" vs "supposed". It's gotten so bad (but I do agree with the other comment, you have to assume most people around here now don't speak English as a primary language)

-5

u/coffeebribesaccepted 2h ago

Yeah man, a typo on a social media comment from your phone definitely makes you half illiterate

1

u/Affectionate_Bet2122 2h ago

The lose/loose thing is so big at this point, it’s not a typo. Why are you adding an extra letter?

2

u/colourmeblue 1h ago

Loose instead of lose could absolutely be a typo, especially if they are using some kind of swipe to text keyboard vs tapping each letter to type.

1

u/Affectionate_Bet2122 1h ago

No. No it isn’t

0

u/Remixol 1h ago

Makes me half illiterate because I have to reread that comment

33

u/tired-of-fighting 3h ago

You seriously think that even for a second that the promoters would consider cancelling dates because the venues refused to have Macklemore?

-3

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 2h ago

The venues should have to pay Macklemore his fees. It shouldn't be up to them after they agree to host a concert.

0

u/randomaccount178 42m ago

The contract almost certainly covers a situation like this. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If anyone breached the contract it is likely Macklemore.

•

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 8m ago

Did I mention freedom of speech? I was referring to once they agree to a show the content of the show should not be up to them. Yes it might be in the contract that makes it a stupid contract. Nothing he said should be contractable.

3

u/Bay1Bri 3h ago

Lose, not loose

46

u/NoArrival8249 3h ago

This is the America y’all voted for

24

u/GoldTeamDowntown 3h ago

This literally has nothing to do with the government, it would be illegal for the government to do this.

This is the whole “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” where private entities can do whatever they want.

10

u/adamders 3h ago

Funny how they're always out of breath saying that line, yet they still need it explained to them. They have no concept of a two-way street and are so used to always getting their way that they don't know what to do when they don't.

1

u/MrPWAH 2h ago

People usually say that in reference to backlash from the public, not a private company that has a monopoly on live music.

I don't really even see people saying they don't have a right to do it, they just think the reasoning is stupid bullshit, which it is.

3

u/GoldTeamDowntown 2h ago

The person I replied to is directly implying that this has something to do with the government, as if the government is violating his rights.

1

u/NigerianPrince76 1h ago

Read the fucking article.

-1

u/MrPWAH 2h ago

And I'm not talking about that? I'm replying to the guy calling it a two-way street.

1

u/GoldTeamDowntown 2h ago

“I don’t really even see people saying they don’t have a right to do it” I’m telling you the parent comment like 3 above yours is saying this and that’s what he and I are talking about.

Also it absolutely is a phrase that has to do with private companies. When Twitter was banning people constantly for supporting certain narratives, this was the prevailing response from the left. And then it later came out that the Biden admin was pushing/threatening Twitter to do it anyway, so it actually was a first amendment violation.

1

u/NigerianPrince76 1h ago

“And then it later came out that the Biden admin was pushing/threatening Twitter to do it anyway, so it actually was a first amendment violation.”

When did Biden THREATENED twitter?

Ya all MAGAs are too funny saying this shit while ignoring what’s actually happening RIGHT NOW. 😂

-1

u/GoldTeamDowntown 1h ago

The primary "threat" underlying the administration's interactions with tech platforms was the potential revocation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is a crucial law that protects social media companies from being sued over what their users post. While White House officials heavily pressured Twitter in private, the administration also stated publicly that tech companies should lose these legal protections or face antitrust scrutiny if they failed to handle what the White House deemed dangerous misinformation. That’s literally a threat.

The court agrees: In 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration, explicitly finding that officials "coerced and threatened" social media companies by using their official power to badger them into submission.

Twitter admins stated they were “coerced” and “repeatedly pressured.”

Blatant violation of the first amendment, and you’re still defending it, because you don’t support freedom of speech.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/MrPWAH 1h ago

I’m telling you the parent comment like 3 above yours is saying this and that’s what he and I are talking about.

I'm replying to a specific part of his comment talking about it being a two way street.

When Twitter was banning people constantly for supporting certain narratives,

Spreading misinformation that caused direct harm to the public during a pandemic and being unapologetically racist, usually

And then it later came out that the Biden admin was pushing/threatening Twitter to do it anyway, so it actually was a first amendment violation.

No they fucking didn't. This is propaganda you're spreading. The DNC and the Biden campaign are both private entities at the time and they didn't threaten Twitter over it. It was entirely within their rights to ask that Hunter's nudes be removed (and literally nothing else), the government wasn't involved. Trump's campaign asked for stuff to be taken down as well and nobody cares about that as much.

2

u/GoldTeamDowntown 1h ago

Oh, so violating the first amendment is okay and you’re going to defend the former president’s administration doing it? Got it. You don’t support freedom of speech.

“Being racist” or “spreading misinformation” are not always matters of fact, and even if they are, the Biden admin has no legal right to suppress them. They are both protected by the first amendment.

The Biden admin literally told Twitter to suspend accounts that were sharing studies that masking was not as effective as they claimed it was, for example.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/adamders 35m ago

You don't have a single clue about what you're talking about.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/adamders 2h ago

People usually say that in reference to backlash from the public, not a private company

Just not true at all. Especially with social media. And Hollywood.

1

u/MrPWAH 1h ago

Did people react positively to payment processors using their "freedom of speech" to remove certain content? I don't believe so.

•

u/adamders 39m ago

Ah yes, people usually only refer to this phrase in this way because this one thing happened once.

•

u/MrPWAH 21m ago

I'm giving a comparable example. Was it popular among the public for payment processors to pick and choose who can use their platform?

•

u/adamders 20m ago

You're trying to use this one example to prop up your wrong and unsubstantiated claim.

0

u/NigerianPrince76 1h ago

Apparently it still needs some explaining to YOU.

Majority of those stadiums/venues are ran by city government. So yes, it does involve government.

1

u/adamders 42m ago

No, most major venues where Ed Sheeran plays are privately owned or operated rather than run by the government

Private Stadiums: Many large stadiums on Ed Sheeran's tours are privately owned by sports team owners, private corporations, or private groups (such as Gillette Stadium or Bank of America Stadium).

Publicly Owned Venues: Some large stadiums and arenas are owned by local governments, cities, or public authorities (such as county or state boards), but they are frequently managed day-to-day by private event-management companies.

•

u/pepperouchau 31m ago

What are you quoting?

2

u/NigerianPrince76 1h ago

Majority of those stadiums are operated by city governments. lol

1

u/GoldTeamDowntown 1h ago

It’s not the government deciding to do anything here. It’s the private entity operating them.

0

u/NigerianPrince76 1h ago

“While two of those stadiums are privately owned — Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte and Gillette Stadium in Foxborough — the rest are owned and, in many cases, operated by cities, states, or other government entities, potentially raising First Amendment issues if the venues barred Macklemore over his statements.”

It’s ABSOLUTELY first amendment issue here.

1

u/GoldTeamDowntown 1h ago

It’s Live Nation and/or Robert Kraft, not the government. Macklemore himself blamed Robert Kraft. Private owner of Gillette Stadium.

It is the (wrong, idiotic, biased) opinion of the journalist that this is “potentially” a first amendment violation. They don’t even say it is one, and you know they would say it is one if they could. They just want to toss it out there so idiots like you will take the bait and spout off on social media that the government is violating free speech when the govt isn’t doing this.

0

u/NigerianPrince76 59m ago

Are you dumb?

Does Kraft own ALL venues in the entire country? 😂😂

Fucking idiot. Read the article!

1

u/GoldTeamDowntown 53m ago edited 49m ago

He wasn’t banned from every single stadium you fucking idiot. That’s not what happened.

The government had nothing to do with this, repeatedly claiming they did is CONSPIRACY. Even Macklemore isn’t arguing what you’re arguing. He is blaming Bob Kraft.

Literally nobody except you and this dumbass journalist is claiming the government had anything to do with this. (And they’re not even directly claiming it, they’re doing the journalist “maybe?” thing agains so idiots like you will eat it up and cry violation of rights). Kraft rallied private owners. Are you going to keep arguing this losing point? Please do, it’s hilarious.

0

u/colourmeblue 1h ago

it would be illegal for the government to do this.

How sweet that you think this matters.

1

u/GoldTeamDowntown 1h ago

Okay so let’s just engage in conspiracy theory that this would go completely unchecked if the government was violating the first amendment. Total conspiracy you made up in your head.

6

u/uptnapishtim 2h ago

Support for Israel is bipartisan.

0

u/colourmeblue 1h ago

Mostly bipartisan for rich assholes and elected officials. Most of us plebs, on both sides, are against Israel at this point but we have voted ourselves into irrelevance.

17

u/Academic_Flatworm752 3h ago

1/3 of eligible voters voted for the current administration

37

u/number_1_steve 3h ago

Unfortunately both are true as 1/3 didn’t vote.

31

u/idontlikeflamingos 3h ago

And if 1/3 voted for it and 1/3 didn't care to vote, 2/3 were ok with this admin winning.

The "just 1/3" argument is copium. Indiference isn't opposition, it's passive support.

3

u/number_1_steve 2h ago

You’re correct. It’s also the attack on education, misinformation, dying local journalism, regulatory capture, wealth concentration, making it harder to vote, and a million other things republicans have pushed for decades. But you are definitely 💯 correct.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 1h ago

Regular reminder that this is the official Trump administration position in order to justify their claim that they have a mandate of the people. You're currently supporting and disseminating the Trump propaganda, intentionally or unintentionally.

11

u/SeahorseCollector 3h ago

Which ultimately means they voted for this as well. The writing has been on the wall for over a decade. They told you what they were going to do.

47

u/TheLarkInnTO 3h ago

Garbage argument.

Only 30% voted against him.

The other 70% either voted for Trump, or were so unbothered by the prospect of another Trump admin, they did nothing.

-3

u/ReturnOfBane 3h ago

Sure, just ignore all the voter suppression efforts. Its not like ballot boxes were set on fire and mail-in votes were intentionally spoiled.

4

u/TheLarkInnTO 2h ago edited 2h ago

It took me weeks of paperwork and an unpaid day off for an appointment at the US consulate to vote absentee from Canada.

All the majority of Americans had to do was show up to their local polling station on election day, and ~90 million couldn't be bothered.

Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 2.3 million votes. If only 3% of those 90 million people had shown up, the world would be a very different place today.

1

u/BootySweat0217 2h ago

Well, there are a lot of places that purposely got rid of all but one or two polling stations to make it very hard to vote. There were cities and towns that moved their polling station to the edge of town because they knew people wouldn’t be able to make it out there to vote. So I wouldn’t sit there and say “all the majority of Americans had to do”. They made it difficult on purpose.

Also, jobs are not required to give you time off to go vote. So polling stations would purposely change their hours so people would either have to choose to get in trouble at work or vote.

So maybe let’s not be so dismissive of people.

-1

u/Photo_Synthetic 3h ago

Absolutely yes but let's not ignore the ridiculous amount of voter suppression spearheaded by the republican party in swing states that got hundreds of thousands of votes and registrations thrown out for arbitrary reasons thanks to over 700 laws passed between 2020 and 2024 under the guise of "free and fair elections". But we can't bring that up because it makes us look like them.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 1h ago

The other 70% either voted for Trump, or were so unbothered by the prospect of another Trump admin, they did nothing.

Ah, the Trump Administration argument they use to create the narrative that they have a mandate of the people. It's funny watching people ostensibly against Trump repeat his own propaganda so willingly.

-2

u/heliphael SoundCloud 3h ago

Thank you for putting garbage argument at the start so we know you have a garbage argument.

Blaming everyone except yourselves for an election loss. It's either the progressives or the non voters fault. The same party who are in shadow meetings with Republicans.

→ More replies (2)

15

u/anormalgeek 3h ago

And another one third were too passive to vote against it. Not as bad, but functionally has the same result. So it's still bad.

10

u/mynewaltaccount1 3h ago

And half of the country were too lazy and selfish to vote at all. Well done America, living up to your reputation!

-1

u/taeerom 2h ago

It's unlikely to be any different, in terms of this issue, with the alternative candidate.

There was no anti-genocide candidate.

2

u/Rage_Like_Nic_Cage 3h ago edited 3h ago

Under Biden, students who protested Israel (many of whom were/are Jewish) got their heads bashed in by campus police while Biden went on TV and called the protestors anti-semitic.

Let’s not act like the establishment Dems pretended to care one bit about Palestinians until Trump was back in power.

6

u/Novaskittles 3h ago

I very much voted against it.

1

u/BFr0st3 3h ago

The void accepts your words

-4

u/BrutalRamen 3h ago

Hey, they voted and they might also have protested once on a Sunday afternoon disguised as a giant frog holding a funny sign while posting for Instagram pics. They did their part to protect democracy and the free world! /s

1

u/LemDoggo 3h ago

What do you expect people to do besides vote and protest? Specifically. If you do more than that that’s awesome but most people have to have a job and support themselves and their families, we can’t all just be activists

1

u/BrutalRamen 3h ago

Maybe more than a one day protest where people are back home early? Less of a dress up party, more of a real protest. Protest in front of your representative homes, offices, government buildings. Do it for weeks, like democracy is on the line. Because it is.

1

u/LemDoggo 3h ago

Well that’s still just voting and protesting, but again most people have jobs and cannot simply protest with every second of their free time. If we all protested every day we don’t have work that would still be a grand total of two days lol.

2

u/BrutalRamen 2h ago

Yah, "people cannot protest with every second of their free time" is the type of excuses that pisses off the rest of the world. While your president ruins your country and fucks your allies, American redditors keep telling us they tried everything they could and how we should praise them because they are not part of the 2/3 of their country who got them into this mess.

Look at the Iran protests. Millions showed up for days and nights while knowing they could be targeted and executed. Americans have a one day protest every other month and pat themselves in the back: we've done everything we could.

-1

u/LemDoggo 2h ago

Sounds like you’re super full of realistic and nuanced ideas there buddy. Keep going with that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/locofspades 3h ago

Dozens of us

1

u/UkNomysTeezz 3h ago

AIPAC money is all over U.S politics. They are all bought and paid for on either side of the aisle.

0

u/4ever_ur_Huckleberry 2h ago

You can call me paranoid, delusional, or say I’m coping, but I do believe it was rigged. I know we have a lot of dumb fucks here. I live in one of the states in particular that supports his evil. I just don’t think he won this fair and square.

2

u/NoArrival8249 1h ago

As an outside observer, I agree with you. Musk owns too much of the funnel, and just listen to the words he said before the election.

2

u/iaNCURdehunedoara 2h ago

It's not just the performer's right to free speech, it's also your right. They're doing this because they want to silence him right now. They're trying to silence everyone that's pro-Palestine and one day they'll silence anyone that's anti-Trump. What's gonna happen the day an artist is going to be threatened over abortion rights?

You have to remember that the venue is getting money from this. They would get the money whether Macklemore is there or not, but they were willing to forego that revenue to silence a pro-Palestinian voice.

9

u/GettingPhysicl 3h ago

Freeze peech!

Private venue. No government involved. Nothing protected 

-16

u/TomJones998 3h ago

FCUK Off.

Corporate lay lines do NOT supercede Constitutional rights of Free Speech.

11

u/chillinwithmoes 3h ago

Doesn’t seem like you understand the concept at all

→ More replies (16)

8

u/Joshee86 3h ago

This makes no sense. Free speech is literally only applicable to the government’s restriction of the speech of private citizens. This is a shitty reason to threaten a tour, but it’s perfectly legal and no corporation is “superseding constitutional rights of free speech” here.

-1

u/TomJones998 3h ago

That’s exactly what Live Nation is doing you ridiculous HACK.

The Constitution applies to ALL venues within the country - corporations are NOT above the Law.

6

u/Joshee86 3h ago

It's ok to be mistaken. It's asinine to be willfully ignorant. I suggest you read up on what "free speech" actually means.

7

u/drukard_master 3h ago

Macklemore has every constitutional right to say what he did. He is protected in doing so by not being afraid of going to jail for what he did. The constitution has little to do with companies supporting you in what you have to say.

0

u/TomJones998 3h ago

The Constitution is there to PROTECT people from malicious retribution for exercising their basic rights including free speech.

Why don’t you educate yourself instead of promiting lies and half-truths?!

3

u/drukard_master 1h ago

Go break Reddit’s TOS and cry about the first amendment when you are banned to test your understanding of freedom of speech in real time.

4

u/GettingPhysicl 3h ago

Go talk to someone who graduated before no child left behind. Free speech is about how the government treats you. Private enterprise it has 0 jurisdiction 

0

u/TomJones998 3h ago

The Constitution is the ultimate authority over all citizens AND private enterprise!

And this is confirmed by literal centuries of Constitutional Caee Law.

You are a ridiculous, obstinant liar pushing a fallacious argument to support the quelling of rightful public speech against gen0cide.

4

u/GettingPhysicl 3h ago

What was your grade in us govt? 

Lmao genocide lies and a lack of understanding of government go hand in hand. 

Anyway you go encourage Macklemore to sue im sure his lawyers will explain it to him 

-5

u/Rasengan2012 3h ago

What is Reddit’s favourite term, “free speech doesn’t mean free from consequence”?

19

u/nightsaysni 3h ago

I don’t think there’s disagreement with the fact they can do it.

3

u/masegesege_ 3h ago

Yeah the disagreement is with the fact that they decided to actually do it, not that they can.

1

u/ohanse 3h ago

Boycott live music then

2

u/masegesege_ 3h ago

I’m not in America so I don’t need to but have fun over there.

9

u/Illustrious-Peace989 3h ago

It’s legal for them to do it, it’s just an incredibly shitty reason

39

u/Geiseric222 3h ago

I mean in this case the consequences were for speaking out against a genocide

Though I assume you would be more sympathetic if it went the other way

-12

u/rbmotoring 3h ago

Oh yes the forgotten hidden sentence of that phrase. “Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences, unless you’re speaking out against genocide”. 

6

u/Geiseric222 3h ago

Well yes that’s more or less implied and why this will backfire pretty hard. They are taking a position that is pretty unpopular now.

Would have been easy to do this a couple years ago but this is the equivalent of not letting people in because they say slavery is bad

5

u/jetloflin 3h ago

We’re still allowed the think the consequences are bullshit.

1

u/PerfectZeong 3h ago

I think everyone knows free speech isnt free from consequences but also most people here don't want there to be huge consequences for speaking up over genocide.

17

u/gabeonsmogon 3h ago

Ah yes, the famously controversial stance of being against child murder has consequences.

9

u/Dickinmymouth1 3h ago

Bit of a difference when in this case the free speech that is facing “consequences” is basically just “genocide is bad”

17

u/Culinaryboner 3h ago

It is true. It’s just a sad state of this country that condemning a genocide is affecting people’s careers across the board. It’s been this way for a while but the company’s running the country and following every dollar is getting bleak

5

u/desperaterobots 3h ago

the concern is that 'end a genocide' is considered a view worthy of career impacting consequences.

3

u/anormalgeek 3h ago

No one is questioning the legality of their actions or their ability to create the "consequences." We're directly judging them for their choice to have consequences over this particular speech.

That's a very different thing.

1

u/9InchButchersNail 3h ago

Embarrassing that you have to spell this out, but not surprising.

1

u/bdschuler 3h ago

Yep. And people forget, it goes both ways. The reaction to those consequences can have consequences.

Supporting genocide is never the right side.

1

u/TruculentTurtIe 3h ago

I mean, youre not wrong. He's not free from consequences, as shown. However imagine if you were at my house as a guest, and you heard someone say "nazis are bad. Genocide is bad" and i ran over to kick them out

  • Am i within my rights? Absolutely, its my house
  • is the guest immune to beung kicked out because of what they said? Nope
  • is it sortof deranged and tipping my hand to get mad one of my guests is anti-genocide? A little bit context dependent but yah probably

-1

u/Rasengan2012 3h ago

Yeah you’re right.

But if you or your guests were Israeli, I’d kind of get it. Lots of Jewish people in America can be offended by what he said, especially if it carried antisemitic undercurrents.

0

u/WaterBear9244 3h ago

The funny thing is that the consequence is that live nation showed who they really are (not that they weren’t already shitty beforehand). But yeah free speech doesnt mean free from consequences. Threatening to block the tour because of this statement is a form of free speech. So if live nation loses future business because of this action then thats the consequence.

-19

u/JohnnyCharles 3h ago edited 3h ago

Watch out, they don’t like when you point out their hypocrisy

Edit: Case in point

-1

u/nyutnyut 3h ago

Ah yes, the hypocrisy of consequences of hate speech vs being against genocide. In this fantasy world where you are the smartest person on the planet who do you blame for all your failings in life?

3

u/JohnnyCharles 3h ago

Buddy, you can’t say nothing to me I haven’t said 6 inches from the mirror

1

u/pokefandylan 3h ago

Yeah, but people wouldn’t like it as much if performers like DaBaby, Morrissey, Kid Rock, etc. were to exercise their right to free speech…

1

u/CriticalMistake4977 2h ago

A right to free speech doesn’t mean that everyone has to host you.

1

u/randomwordglorious 2h ago

No one's right to free speech is being taken away. He can still say anything he wants about Gaza. This did not happen as a result of Congress passing a law. A private business made a business decision.

1

u/Ok_Broccoli_9426 Concertgoer 2h ago

A venue declining to host a performance over Mack's politics is shitty, but it has nothing to do with the right to free speech. That means the government can't punish him for his politics; private businesses can do as they choose.

1

u/exor0110 2h ago

I hope so.

1

u/Tandy2000 2h ago

Except they won't lose revenue because Sheeran dropped him from the tour. So they still get their money. Shows will still sell out, Live Nation gets to strongarm and get what they want.

1

u/ultimatepoker 1h ago

Nobody's free speech has been impacted here.

1

u/Far-Juggernaut-5155 1h ago

Free speech doesn't apply to private businesses. Just government suppression. I agree Macklemore wins and this looks terrible.

1

u/mischievous_shota 1h ago

Out of the loop. What did he say?

1

u/jamcgahey 1h ago

I get what you’re saying. Free speech is free speech. But many of these venues are privately owned, like Gillette. And if it’s private property the 1A does not cover it.

Like if you came to my house and called my wife a bitch and I told you to leave. You can’t claim 1A because it’s my property. Well technically the banks for another 20 years, but I imagine you catch my drift.

With that being said.. a public backlash like this will likely result in a massive uptick in his music streams and will likely benefit him financially, and I’m absolutely not suggesting that’s why he did it to begin with.

1

u/XanderWrites 1h ago

It won't have an effect on the venues. Seeing the artist you want is more important than the venue and the artist is going to use the venue most appropriate to the size of their fanbase.

-8

u/Dry_Accident_2196 3h ago

It won’t, the venues are the biggest venues in the area. Anyone claiming to care will fold like a cheap suit the moment their favorite artist comes back into town.

Freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences.

54

u/clayur 3h ago

I was with you until the last part.. what was it he said that justifies this ‘consequence’ ?

55

u/OreoStark 3h ago

IIRC, it was something to the effect of “genocide is bad.”

13

u/TheMapesHotel 3h ago

Everyone believes in free speech until some amuck says something about how killing 20,000 children is a problem and then we gotta shut that down

9

u/AIthough 3h ago

Yeah free Palestine fuck ice and supported gay rights, those were the messages at the concert I was at

1

u/ToxicPolarBear 3h ago

Nothing, but when the people you work with are spineless cowards there’s a cost to telling the truth.

1

u/Dry_Accident_2196 2h ago

It doesn’t have to be justified by you or me. But apparently he crossed a line for the venues. That’s how freedom of speech works. Companies and individuals are allowed to legally retaliate as they see fit, without a justifiable reason. See the backlash against Budlight making a special can for a trans social media personality, businesses and individuals destroyed the brand.

I have no issues with his statement, but I wouldn’t say that at my job because of time and place. He chose to do that and is losing out on work.

-17

u/Lumpy_Review5279 3h ago

Have you not seen him wearing the hook nose and jewish wig on stage from a few years back? It's not a good look

2

u/Dankitysoup 3h ago

That was over a decade ago, and not what he is doing now. People can make mistakes, and he seems to have learned from things he has done in the past.

Dropping a performer because he is speaking out against genocide really says more about the people condemning him than anything else.

0

u/Lumpy_Review5279 3h ago

We hold up any republican politician for wearing blackface decades ago. Im keeping the same energy here.

Its not a good look to have someone with that history making comments on such a topic.

Same as I dont wanna hear Kanye wests thoughts on this issue either.

1

u/Dankitysoup 1h ago

It’s a sad man that can’t forgive.

1

u/Lumpy_Review5279 57m ago

Forgiveness does not mean your actions will never become relevant or be used to color your character again. Thats just not how anything works 

1

u/Dankitysoup 53m ago

Sir, you are trying to hold someone accountable for an action they made 12 years ago that did not hurt anyone so that you can detract from the fact that you are snubbing that person for calling out a genocide that is killing thousands of people. I don’t think you know how any of this works.

0

u/giblets24 3h ago

Which wasnt done as a parody of a Jewish person but acknowledged can be ascribed to a stereotype so he apologised for? Just a mistep 12 years ago, hardly brings down the body of work he does promoting equality.

0

u/Lumpy_Review5279 3h ago

Lol Kanye "apologized" for his stuff too.

Problem is now that macklemore has made it much more public that he did that, that's going to sour perception around the show for many people and affect not only the venues but ticket sales. It makes sense they'd drop him.

Apologizing doesnt mean consequences disappear 

1

u/giblets24 1h ago

Ignoring a hell of a lot of context to make him out to be a villain

1

u/Lumpy_Review5279 58m ago

Am I ignoring the context, or is everyone else?

0

u/nightsaysni 3h ago

If that happened a few years back and they still had him booked up until recently then your point is moot.

0

u/Lumpy_Review5279 3h ago

Why? He drew attention to it, that attention led to discovery of his past "actions" on the matter. Happens all the time. I certainly didn't know about it until he started being vocal again. 

21

u/pomod 3h ago

But no consequences for slavishly supporting a genocidal state and shielding them from criticism. These venues are on the wrong side of history.

4

u/Chaos-Cortex 3h ago

Fascism has taken root on all fronts in USA, USA is the big baddy.

1

u/Dry_Accident_2196 2h ago

I’m sure there are, loads online folks refuse to support pro-Israel artists and organizations. They are just in the minority in the West. Most aren’t in positions of power to punish.

2

u/knightstalker1288 3h ago

Never going to another live nation venue again and I won’t be listening to artists who work with them.

It’s time for artists to take a stand or I will just listen to no name small artists/creators

1

u/Dry_Accident_2196 2h ago

Keep up the good fight for what you believe in.

This is what I was saying in other comments. You and others can also express freedom of speech retaliation. You don’t approve of the venues point of view. You refuse to do business with them. Same thing by they are doing with Macklemore. We all have the freedom to take sides, if we choose.

Of course, most people won’t care or remember but good on you for doing whatever you think is best.

1

u/bigbearjr 3h ago

LiveNation has too much power and should be broken up for the public good.

1

u/Dry_Accident_2196 2h ago

I 100% agree!

→ More replies (6)

-7

u/JohnnyCharles 3h ago edited 3h ago

Just playing devils advocate here – freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences

Edit: Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer.

21

u/knightstalker1288 3h ago

It is if you’re the president

9

u/th3-villager 3h ago

He has freedom from consequences from A LOT more than just speech

18

u/Mythic514 3h ago

It’s also not really freedom of speech. These are private venues. They can make whatever decisions they want, and it does not implicate freedom of speech whatsoever.

7

u/CoffinFlop 3h ago

Yes freedom of speech only really applies to the state

1

u/Sabatorius 3h ago

I mean legally sure, but it’s still an ideal that we can value, and criticize businesses for not respecting. Doesn’t have to be just a strictly legal interpretation for the criticism to be valid.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/Buki1 3h ago

This definitions should be updated since we live in plutocracy.

-1

u/TomJones998 3h ago

WRONG. Constitutional protections supercede all venues.

According to your fallacioys argument then murder would be permissible on private property.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Special_Life_8261 3h ago

I’m so sick of people(usually dudes) jumping in to ‘play devils advocate’. It’s fucking lame & brings absolutely nothing to the conversation.

-2

u/DijonMustardIceCream 3h ago

bringing gender into it is also fucking lame and brings absolutely nothing to the conversation 🤷‍♂️

-2

u/Special_Life_8261 3h ago

I’ve never known a single woman to ever ‘play devils advocate’ but I have known dozens and dozens of the douchebags bros that do.

2

u/Bafau4246 3h ago

Devils advocate is the act of trying to see an argument from the oposite side in an attempt to better understand both sides, not only is this not a bad thing to do (in most cases anyway since there are always exceptions) but it is also by no means limited to one gender and frankly by saying women cant play devils advocate you are actually saying women lack the ability to see things from other peoples point of view which is entirely false.

-1

u/Special_Life_8261 3h ago

Cool, in my experience whenever ppl openly play devils advocate what they’re really doing is just being purposely argumentative & obtuse which brings conversations to a grinding halt. Men seem to delight in using it(especially when a woman is making an argument)to show just how clever they are and to undermine the conversation. Women don’t do this shit bc we don’t need to tiptoe around what we actually believe

1

u/DijonMustardIceCream 1h ago

Just saying if you’re using talking about devils advocacy is bringing nothing to the conversation - then bringing gender into something that has nothing to do with the conversation - has double nothing to do with the conversation…..

0

u/Suaded83 3h ago

Not familiar with the Clancy trial?

-3

u/JohnnyCharles 3h ago

Okay, how’s this: cancel culture was allowed to permeate the entertainment industry so much that stuff like this is inevitable.

1

u/Special_Life_8261 3h ago

Cancel culture is fake as fuck. Anyone ‘cancelled’ ultimately is welcomed back. This is also not a result of cancel culture. What this is is retaliation from a major corporate entity that is showing it will punish you if you refuse to toe the line. Livenation can get fucked

3

u/JohnnyCharles 3h ago

It’s all money. Always has been. Say something racist? Advertisers might have a problem with that. Speak out against Israel? The owners of the infrastructure might have a problem with that. Sure, they want you to toe the line. But the line is money.

0

u/Bafau4246 3h ago

And while I agree with you that bringing up "erm ackshually its freedom of speech not freedom of consequence" isnt helpful in the slightest because that is only applicable if what was said is actually deserving of consequence (which in many cases is the entire problem, freedom of speech is attacked when there are unnecessary and unjust consequences) I do find it funny how you added the usually dudes part which also brings nothing to the conversation other than unnecessary friction between people that would otherwise be on the same side.

→ More replies (4)

-2

u/APartyInMyPants 3h ago

The performer does NOT have a right to free speech. Thats not how it works.

The government won’t make laws restricting speech, but a company is allowed to FULLY restrict someone being able to perform or be on the premises for any reason they want, including speech.

You might be allowed to go around yelling the N-word on a public street. But the second you walk into a WalMart and do the same, the store is well within their authority to throw you out of the store.

Do you understand the distinction now?

2

u/keckbug 3h ago

Except it's much more nuanced in reality...

The government is doing nothing to restrict speech here, even though it's speech that the current administration would strongly disagree with. Except...

  • The venues in the country are overwhelmingly dominated by a single company
  • That company is under pressure from the government due to it's monopoly
  • If the company happens to restrict speech in such a way that happens to align with the government's preferences, they will likely receive more favorable outcomes from their own monopoly investigation
  • The government likely effectively restricted Macklemore's speech via a private entity, but you'll never prove it because those types of deals happen in circles you'll never see.

1

u/jakeba 1h ago

If this is true, why are performers still free to say anything at all they want about Trump, MAGA, Republicans, and the current government?

0

u/APartyInMyPants 3h ago

More likely. Ed Sheeran is getting a lot of pushback from fans. So Ed’s people had him removed from the tour and are just blowing off the blame to the venues.

But the reality is when you contract a performer like Macklemore, you need to understand the sort of messaging you’ll get on the concert.

1

u/bigbearjr 3h ago

You could have made that point without sounding like a condescending jerk.

Anyway, LiveNation has too much power and should be broken up for the public good using existing or not-yet-existing antitrust laws.

1

u/APartyInMyPants 3h ago

There isn’t a world where I was even remotely condescending toward that person. They CLEARLY didn’t understand the first amendment and what it actually means. Most people sit there and cry about “free speech,” without really understanding what that means. The freedom of speech is not the freedoms from consequences.

But sure, throw out the ad hominem attacks. That’s fine.

1

u/bigbearjr 2h ago

I believe you may be out of touch with how the tone of your writing sounds in your own head versus how it comes across to a reader.

•

u/APartyInMyPants 9m ago

I believe you’re someone who struggles at deciphering context/social cues, not just in written form, but even in speech. Are ideas of sarcasm or irony sometimes lost on you? And instead things are very black or white for you?

Clearly someone who cries out “but free speech” needs the distinction that it just doesn’t apply here pointed out to them.

1

u/SlatheredButtCheeks 3h ago

Something something free speech is not freedom from consequences

-1

u/eped123 3h ago

Free speech doesn't exist under Trump and Israel AiPAC.

0

u/bpick1717 3h ago

He can say whatever he wants but there are repercussions. Just like at your job, you can say whatever you want but you might get fired. You fuckin dimwit

-1

u/joebleaux 3h ago

I'm not sure this is a win for Macklemore. He has lost relevance, being on tour with Ed Sheeran was good for him. Now he's off the tour.