This week, musician Macklemore was removed as an opening act for musician Ed Sheeran's stadium tour in light of what Macklemore said and performed during an early September performance in New Jersey.

During one of the performances, Macklemore said, "Free Palestine." He also addressed his "Jewish brothers and sisters" and said that criticizing Israel and apartheid and "being against genocide" is not a criticism of Jews themselves. He then professed his desire for "love for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality." He also criticized the US government.

Additionally, according to the New York Times,

At the concert, Macklemore performed “Hind’s Hall,” his 2024 protest song against the war in Gaza, which began after the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. In the song, Macklemore described Israel’s destruction in Gaza as a “genocide.” He also showed the track’s music video, which includes scenes from Gaza and student protests in the United States. “You can ban TikTok, take us out the algorithm,” he raps. “But it’s too late, we’ve seen the truth, we bear witness.”

This was apparently enough to draw strong criticisms (like from musician Pink) and calls for Macklemore to be fired.

Macklemore immediately came under criticism, including from the Anti-Defamation League and the group StopAntisemitism.
The Israeli-American Council published a petition online calling on Sheeran and the venues hosting his tour to drop Macklemore, saying that Macklemore had used “selective imagery, biased messaging and disputed claims.” The petition added, “Keep Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour about music — not political propaganda.”

And so, Macklemore was fired from the rest of the Sheeran tour. Macklemore released a lengthy statement about his firing on Instagram. In it, he focused on the suffering of Palestinian people, particularly children. He expressed his appreciation of his relationship with Sheeran. He then said,

Ed told me that Robert Kraft call him. We were scheduled to play Gillette Stadium later this month, which is owen by the Kraft Group. Ed told me that Kraft said I would not be allowed to perform in this stadium. Ed also told me that Kraft has rallied some fo the other stadium owners and collectively they gave him an ultimatum: if Macklemore stays on the tor, you will not be allowed to play in our venues.

Kraft is, of course, the owner of the New England Patriots.

Macklemore also said, "[Sheeran] told me that the words 'Free Palestine' and the image of the Palestinian flag were hurtful to a lot of people he spoke with."

Finally, Ed Sheeran put out his own bullet-point statement on Instagram. It was...lacking. He explained that it was the tour promoter who, in conjunction with venue owners like Kraft, made the decision to fire Macklemore and not he himself. He said, "I would never let down the fans who had made plans, nor would I abandon the touring crew and other support acts and musicians who rely on me for work and to make a living."

But he did not stop there:

I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn't mean I don't have them, and it doesn't mean I don't care. Nor does it mean I don't support causes in my own, personal way.
There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics - my audience includes young people, often children, of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect Macklemore's strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace. I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary, to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed. If we only focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change. There are different approaches to being an advocate for change.

Oof. Nothing says persuasive like blurting out that you are not complicit. "[T]here is room for multiple approaches"...just not on Sheeran's tour, apparently. Odd that he would invite his politically outspoken friend on tour with him without expecting him to be politically outspoken.

While I can sympathize with the idea of not wanting to let down your fans who paid to see you and tour workers whose livelihood depends on you, one cannot help but think Sheeran was acting like a hypocritical coward in refusing to defend his friend and hiding behind a false veneer of public apoliticism when the political heat became a bit much for him. Perhaps Sheeran simply forgot about having performed a fundraising concert for Ukraine. Or perhaps, Sheeran only engages in politics when it is popular and comes with minimal risk to his career and finances.

On Tuesday, soon after Sheeran's post, four supporting acts, including all remaining opening acts (including prominent musician Finneas) and Sheeran's supporting band for the tour quit in protest of Macklemore's firing. I wonder if Sheeran is going to publicly respect their "approach" to peace. I think we know the answer.

I am a strong supporter of free speech, both the legal concept and the general principle. This website began with a piece criticizing the attempted canceling of someone for their speech. With almost no exceptions, I do not believe people should ever be legally punished for the opinions they voice. And generally, I do not think people should face professional or serious social consequences for the opinions they voice.

I recognize that people have the right to decide who they associate or do business with, but I think we as a society need to be judicious about exercising these rights so that we do not oppress those who hold opinions with which we disagree. Ideas and opinions should prevail because of their merit, not because of political, social, and financial power or leverage.

As John Stuart Mill famously said of the principle of free speech,

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

Should society seek to suppress opinions like Macklemore's? No, not even if you find them noxious and wrong. By attempting to suppress an opinion you do not like, you have weakened the right of free speech and all the benefits that come with it. You also lay the foundation for suppressing your opinions should they fall out of favor or should your power wane.

In the US, we have historically placed great value on the right to criticize political entities like the US government or the nation of Israel. Macklemore voiced his opinion that the nation of Israel is taking actions in Gaza and elsewhere that are oppressive and morally wrong. This type of opinion is one of the most important types of speech, worthy of the utmost respect and protection -- that a strong government entity is harming weaker, innocent people or and trampling on their rights.

If you think his opinion is wrong, the proper way to counter it is to critique his statements, to voice an opposing opinion, and to point toward facts that run contrary to his statements. It is immoral to try to simply to exert your own power and influence to punish and silence the person with which you disagree. And it also portrays weakness and undermines the credibility of your own opinions.

If your views are correct and theirs are wrong, you should be able to prevail by persuading others to your side. Simply suppressing the other person's views implies that you believe the majority and/or the powerful have greater rights. It also implies that you fear others simply hearing their opinion.

Not only is this approach immoral, but it is strategically short-sighted. As I noted, just because you currently have the power and influence to suppress opinions with which you disagree does not mean you always will. By attempting to suppress the speech of others, you are setting a precedent that can be used to suppress your own opinions when you are in a weaker position. Additionally, suppressing a speaker or opinion will often increase attention and interest in it beyond what it would have been had you simply voiced your own opposing opinions.

Unfortunately, Sheeran appears to have let social and financial pressure dictate his beliefs, at least in this matter. If Sheeran truly believes in free speech, he should have fought harder to protect his friend, and not simply his own public standing. At least it is nice to see that there are some less rich musicians with more integrity than Sheeran.