Until this controversy, I had no idea who Macklemore was. I do now — not because I went back and listened to his music, but because a fight over what he said during Ed Sheeran’s stadium tour has become a useful test of what free speech does, and does not, guarantee.
At MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, Macklemore told the crowd that a major reason he joined the tour was to stand in stadiums and say “Free Palestine.” Afterward, multiple venues told the tour promoter they would not host shows with him on the bill. He was removed from the remaining dates. Sheeran says that was the promoter’s decision, not his.
Robert Kraft, the Jewish owner of the New England Patriots and Gillette Stadium, made his position clear: Macklemore would not perform at his venue. Kraft said his objection was not to advocacy for Palestinians itself, but to what he considers Macklemore’s broader record of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery.
I am Jewish. I find much of Macklemore’s rhetoric and behavior surrounding Israel anathema. But that gives me a point of view, not a special constitutional doctrine. My revulsion cannot do the legal work for me.
Free speech matters most when the speaker says something we despise. The line usually attributed to Voltaire was actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906 to summarize his attitude: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Macklemore has rights. So does Kraft. The question is where one ends and the other begins.
The constitutional part is easier than the moral one. The First Amendment restrains government. It does not ordinarily require a private property owner to provide a platform for speech he opposes. In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the Supreme Court held that a private entity does not become a state actor merely because it provides a forum for speech.
Gillette Stadium was privately financed and is operated by the Kraft interests. Macklemore can say “Free Palestine,” condemn Israel, and accuse it of genocide or apartheid.
The words “Free Palestine,” standing alone, are not proof of antisemitism. But they are not a safe harbor either.
Context matters. A speaker cannot wrap other rhetoric or imagery in a political slogan and then insist the slogan itself answers every criticism. The question is not whether Macklemore may say “Free Palestine.” Of course he may. The question is what else is being said, shown, and implied.
Calling something “hate speech” does not change the constitutional rule. Government cannot suppress an idea merely because people find it offensive. But Kraft is not the government.
My antipathy toward Macklemore’s message cannot enlarge Kraft’s legal rights. Macklemore’s right to express that message cannot diminish Kraft’s rights either.
Remarkably, Massachusetts has seen a version of this dispute before.
In 1982, the Boston Symphony Orchestra hired Vanessa Redgrave to narrate Stravinsky’s Oedipus Rex. After protests over her support for the Palestine Liberation Organization and her views concerning Israel, the orchestra canceled her appearance.
Redgrave sued. Her contract claim survived, and she recovered damages. But her claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act failed.
That old case matters because it reminds us not to mash every dispute into a First Amendment argument. Contract rights are one thing. Free-speech rights are another.
We have not seen Macklemore’s contract. Sheeran says Macklemore contracted with the promoter, not with him. Whether Macklemore has a contractual claim depends on language the public has not seen.
There is another issue we should not wave away.
Macklemore alleges that Kraft did more than exclude him from Gillette: He says Kraft rallied other stadium owners into a collective ultimatum. The promoter confirms that multiple venues objected, but that does not tell us whether they acted independently or in concert.
If evidence shows a coordinated commercial refusal to deal, antitrust questions could arise. And if a government-owned venue itself excluded Macklemore because of his viewpoint, rather than a private operator making the decision, the First Amendment analysis could be different.
For now, we know enough to raise those questions, not answer them. The facts should be investigated, not invented. If more emerge, that may be another column.
The harder question is moral.
Kraft controls one of the largest stages in New England. That is real power, and private power can chill speech even when the First Amendment is not involved.
Kraft still has to defend his judgment that Macklemore crossed a line he was unwilling to amplify. I think he can. But Macklemore has to grant Kraft the same moral agency he claims for himself.
Macklemore says there is “no neutral position between the oppressor and the oppressed.”
Fine.
Then the owner of the stadium is not morally inert either.
If choosing to speak is an act of conscience, choosing what your property will amplify can be one too.
DR. PHIL AND SYLVAN ADAMS GET ISRAEL RIGHT: SHOW HOW JEWS LIVE, NOT JUST HOW THEY DIE
A free society should protect Macklemore’s right to say things I find abhorrent. It should also recognize Kraft’s right, subject to contract and law, to refuse to provide the stage.
Free speech gives Macklemore a voice. It does not give him someone else’s microphone.
Arie Blitz, M.D., M.B.A., is a retired physician and independent writer in Weslaco, Texas, who writes on foreign policy, medical ethics, and public policy.