Opinion: The Miami Herald Editorial Board | The Right to Rock Act advancing in the Florida Legislature aims to address another issue related 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.
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.
> > > > > > > > > >
Read the rest here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-rock-act-double-edged-203756772.html
Florida’s Right to Rock Act Would Be a Double-Edged Sword. We Can Live Without It
