Attorney Barry Covert was recently interviewed by reporter Hannan Adely of The Record to provide legal analysis regarding First Amendment and free speech questions raised by the removal of musical artist Macklemore from scheduled concert performances.
The Record, one of the largest newspapers serving Northern New Jersey and part of the USA TODAY Network, published Adely’s article examining the controversy and the constitutional questions it raises.
Experience with First Amendment Law and Concert Controversies
Barry Covert has extensive experience handling First Amendment and constitutional law matters. He is a Past President and current member of the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, a nationwide association of attorneys devoted to protecting freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Barry also has direct experience with a First Amendment case involving similar legal issues and a high profile musical performer.
In 1997, Barry was part of the Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria legal team that represented Marilyn Manson after operators of Giants Stadium and other venues attempted to cancel the artist’s scheduled concert performance. Marilyn Manson’s legal team prevailed in federal court.
The Record examined that case and its potential applicability to the current controversy involving Macklemore.
The following are among the First Amendment issues Barry addressed in the article.
What First Amendment Questions Are Raised by the Macklemore Concert Controversy?
Macklemore was removed as the opening act for the remaining dates of Ed Sheeran’s U.S. tour after expressing pro-Palestinian views during recent performances at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
The controversy presents an important First Amendment question examined by The Record: When a concert venue belongs to the public, can those who control it exclude a performer because they object to what the performer says?
The distinction is significant because some of the venues that reportedly moved to block Macklemore from performing are publicly owned.
Can a Publicly Owned Venue Exclude a Performer Because of Their Speech?
Addressing the constitutional issues surrounding publicly owned venues, Barry Covert told The Record: “Those who run the stadium cannot dictate who is allowed to go on stage based on the content of their speech.”
Barry also distinguished the circumstances surrounding the two controversies. He explained that the Marilyn Manson case involved fear of an offensive performance, while the current controversy involves objections specifically related to the content of Macklemore’s expressed views.
What Did the Marilyn Manson Case Determine About First Amendment Rights?
The government authority involved in the Marilyn Manson litigation argued that Giants Stadium was a nonpublic forum, which would permit greater restrictions on expression.
Barry explained the significance of the federal court’s decision: “What the court held in the Marilyn Manson case is, even if that stadium was granted designation as a nonpublic forum, you still can’t choose who’s going to be there based upon the content of their speech.”
He further explained that a nonpublic forum may choose not to permit concerts at all, stating “If you don’t allow anyone to perform in a concert there, that’s fine. You’re right if it’s a non-public forum. But if you’re going to allow people to perform there, you can’t choose who the people are based upon the content of their speech.”
Full Article and More Information
Click here to read Hannan Adely’s full article for The Record. To learn more about Barry Covert’s legal practice or to contact him with any questions, click here.
