This is probably the 3rd or 4th time Buju has played Seattle in recent years. I don't recall you making much a fuss last time he was at the Showbox.

Way to go!

I don't think anyone should be on the defensive, but it might not be a good business decision to have this guy play.

I personally wouldn't book a guy that advocated killing someone because they're gay, black, a woman, Asian or whatever. Lot's of groups have songs about killing people (including my beloved Judas Priest) but it's more general.

I don't pretend that bookers have an easy time with these types of decisions, so I wish Steve luck in making his.

To clarify, this is what you're saying, right? "Some people are offended by the display of images of consensual adult sex, and others are offended by the singing of songs about the ritual murder of homosexuals. How can we say that getting all worked up about one is any worse than getting all worked up about the other?"

Hey, The Stranger promotes (runs, even) an event that promotes the video recording of adults having sex, and Neumos promotes an event that (according to what I've read here) promotes the torture and murder of homosexuals. One man's inappropriate sexual behavior among consenting adults is another man's torture and murder -- it's all art, right?

If there's some artistic merit in this song, I'd love to hear about it, but I'm not feeling it.

A private business has every right to choose what kinds of speech it wants associated with it. To imply that Neumo's shouldn't, or doesn't have the right to exclude homophobic musicians is absurd and shows a juvenile understanding of the principals of free speech.

That this guy can promote the murder of people for being gay and people like kerri harrop can chastise charles for calling for some action on this is absolutely disgusting. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if this was KKK member signing about the lynching of blacks. Kerri and friends are some truly frightening folks that hide their bigotry as support for a constitutional principal they don't even understand.

Second, to Kerri Harrop: Jesus, Mary and Joseph. There is a difference between a "controversial form of art" and one (if you can argue that it is an art form, which is debatable) that incites violence.

As someone who attended Hump, I'd personally have no problem if people *were* offended and chose to protest or not do business with the Stranger and/or NWFF as a result. As long as they didn't resort to violence and didn't bring the government into it, I'd totally respect them for doing so.

I find it so strange that you are so gung ho about artists expressing their views but balk at the idea of others reacting and express their own views about that art.

phil: nope, that's not what i am saying at all.

i understand that the stranger has certain guidelines for hump submissions [...] [T]hat does not make the end product (pornography) any less offensive to a number of people [...].

i think it is hypocritical for an entity such as the stranger to tout one controversial form of art [moving pictures of consensual sex between adults], while crying for censorship of another [a dance hall guy who once wrote a song about and often sings about the torture and murder of homosexuals].

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought you said.

It doesn't sound to me like The Stranger is calling for the censorship of any form of art -- just one particular hate-filled instance of a form of art (and they're not exactly calling for the censorship of it, but the point is the same). And the hypocrisy? Give me a break.

Gitai wrote:

I'd argue that pornography really isn't that controversial, considering the sold out Hump! shows, and the multi-billion dollar porn industry in America.

No, something can be controversial and still sell out some shows in a densely populated and socially liberal area, and be related to an industry that makes billions of dollars in profit. But I see what you're saying. If enough people are willing to pay for something that someone can afford to sell it to them, then that thing can only be so bad. I guess.

Gitai continued:

I would argue that saying gay men should be shot, covered with acid, and burned alive would still be considered controversial.

I would like to say that it's not controversial at all, that we are in near-universal agreement that saying so would be just plain bad, but judging by your criteria from above (Is it able to fill a place like Central Cinema [or, say, Neumo's] and is it part of an industry that makes billions of dollars?), I must concede that maybe it's not so controversial. Is Neumo's selling tickets? Is dance hall music a big industry?

Lanik wrote:

A private business has every right to choose what kinds of speech it wants associated with it.

Mostly... but not quite, right? I mean, first there's the question of what "being associated with" some kind of speech means. To simplify, let's say that you take being associated with some kind of speech to include hiring someone to perform that kind of speech to your clients (your audience, if you're a music venue). In that case, I'm pretty sure that there are some restrictions on what is legally or ethically responsible (e.g., hate speech, "Fire!" in a crowded building, "this nicotine will give you strong bones and teeth", are excluded).

Lanik later wrote:

To imply that Neumo's shouldn't, or doesn't have the right to exclude homophobic musicians is absurd and shows a juvenile understanding of the principals of free speech.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant here. Call me nit-picky or just interested enough in what you wrote to seek clarification, but: You wrote that "To [SOMETHING] is absurd and shows a juvenile understanding of the principals of free speech," where [SOMETHING] means either "A or B" or "C or B", where A, B, and C, are as follows:

A. Neumo's should not have the right to exclude homophobic musicicians.

I'm not 100% positive about this, but I think I disagree. I'm fairly certain that they "should have the right" (in my opinion) to not do business with homophobic musicians.

B. Neumo's does not have the right to exclude homophobic musicicians.

Again, I'm not sure, but I think this is incorrect. I'm fairly certain that they do "have the right" (under our current system of law) to exclude homophobic musicians. I don't think that homophobic speech gets any special protection.

C. Neumo's should not exclude homophobic musicians.

This is more complicated. If they can sell the tickets, then from a financial perspective, you're right -- they should not exclude homophobic musicians (just because of their homophobia). But if, for instance, they think that a homophobic musician might spread his homophobic ideas more effectively if he is given the venue to do so (and if homophobia is undesirable), then I think you're wrong; they should exclude homophobic musicians.

So regardless of whether you meant "Implying A or B is absurd..." or you meant "Implying C or B is absurd...", I think you are wrong and/or I disagree. "B" is the real point of contention. A private business does have the right to hire someone to perform homophobic speech, doesn't it? I'm not saying that in my opinion it's okay/good/right to do so, only that a business has the right to do so -- just like I have the right to be a real asshole if I want to.

Lanik wrote:

That this guy can promote the murder of people for being gay and people like kerri harrop can chastise charles for calling for some action on this is absolutely disgusting.

I completely agree that the fact that this guy can promote such cruelty is disgusting. That he does so makes me think he is absolutely disgusting. That Kerri can chastise Charles for calling for some action in reaction to this asshole, though, is a simply result of free speech -- and well worth it, I believe.

That Kerri did chastise Charles for calling for action is kind of sad, as is Neumo's "accidental" booking of this homophobe to perform in our neighborhood.

Neumo's can probably do whatever the hell they want in this case. But if they realized after-the-fact that they contracted with some homophobic asshole to come spread his hateful but first-amendment-protected message in our neighborhood, then it would be pretty cool if they stood outside the show with a sign that said, "Howdy, neighbors. Please don't give this homophobic asshole any more of your money. We don't support what he says, even though we contracted with him to say it. It's just art, you know. Thanks, Nemo's."