41 Shots: Bruce Springsteen and freedom of expression
Commentary
By Kenneth A. Paulson
Senior vice president, The Freedom Forum
Executive director, First Amendment Center
07.12.00
Here's a tip for anyone organizing a boycott of a public performance: Check with the scalpers first.
Upset over a new Bruce Springsteen song called "American Skin (41 Shots)," the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of New York City called for a boycott of Springsteen's performances in the city. The song — which Springsteen has performed only a handful of times in concert — refers to the shooting death last year of black West African immigrant Amadou Diallo by white New York City police officers. Diallo was shot 41 times by four officers who said they believed the wallet he held was in fact a weapon. All four were acquitted this year of murder charges.
In a letter to his membership, PBA President Patrick J. Lynch wrote: "The title seems to suggests that the shooting of Amadou Diallo was a case of racial profiling — which keeps repeating the phrase, 'Forty-one shots.' I consider it an outrage that he would be trying to fatten his wallet by reopening the wounds of this tragic case at a time when police officers and community members are in a healing period."
Lynch then went on to urge that PBA members not moonlight as security at Springsteen shows. "The PBA strongly urges you not only NOT to work this or any other Springsteen concert, but also not to attend," Lynch wrote.
Of course, there was only one down side for the union to this kind of boycott. It largely went unnoticed. Springsteen's 10 shows at Madison Square Garden were all sold out, and scalpers were able to sell tickets at multiples of the face value.
There is also a danger in calling for a boycott before you've had a chance to reflect on what a piece of art represents.
As Elysa Gardner of USA TODAY pointed out in her review of Springsteen's performance, "Those who would cast 'Skin' as an anti-police diatribe were off the mark. The song is more elegiac than angry in tone, expressing sorrow for all parties involved in the incident and, on a larger scale, asking what we can do to overcome the lack of communication that leads to such tragedies."
This is not the first instance of police officers boycotting a performer because of a controversial song:
Police unions across the country last year protested appearances by Rage Against the Machine, a band that supports Mumia Abu-Jamal, a black journalist and political activist who was convicted of killing a police officer and awaits execution on death row in Pennsylvania. The National Fraternal Order of Police urged its local officers to boycott Rage Against The Machine shows. That has led to police protests outside concert halls and the refusal by off-duty officers to work security. Again, ticket sales didn't suffer. In fact, the controversy may have driven additional sales.
Police officers also protested appearances by rap artist Ice-T after he wrote and recorded the controversial "Cop Killer" in 1992. Even after Ice-T bowed to public pressure and pulled the song from his CD, police continued their protests. In Pittsburgh, one club owner canceled a show, telling a reporter he "made a business decision not to jeopardize my relationship with officers."
So how is the First Amendment involved in all of this? Can police officers refuse to work a show when they disagree with the performance?
The First Amendment prevents on-duty officers from refusing because government employees can't deny services to the public in retaliation for offensive speech.
But the First Amendment also gives police officers the right to express their own opinions, which they can do by refusing to moonlight as concert security.
Having the legal right to refuse off-duty security work, however, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Police officers are recruited for these events because they have special expertise in crowd control. When they refuse to work a Bruce Springsteen show, they're not punishing the performer, they're punishing the people of New York who happen to enjoy Springsteen's music.
And while no one denies police unions their right to protest, the practice of boycotting sometimes-controversial performers may be self-defeating. The protests can alienate the public, but they also draw disproportionate publicity to the subject of their protest. In Springsteen's case, that means a largely unheard and as-yet-unrecorded song has become the stuff of rock 'n' roll legend.
During the Rage Against the Machine controversy, the Prince George's County police union found a reasonable middle-ground by criticizing the band, but working the concert.
Union President John Bartlett told a reporter: "As a union head, I have a responsibility for public safety."
Then he added, "And more than anyone, I believe in the First Amendment. Rage Against the Machine has a First Amendment right to speak."
Everyone's best interests are served when police officers find a way to protest unpalatable speech without punishing it.
Ken Paulson is executive director of the First Amendment Center with offices in Arlington, Va., and Nashville, Tenn. His mailing address is:
Ken Paulson
First Amendment Center
1207 18th Ave. S
Nashville, TN 37212