
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
|
|
|
|
|
The
actress Vanessa Redgrave brought suit against
the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) for canceling
a contract for her appearance as narrator in a
performance of Stravinsky's "Oedipus Rex."
BSO cancelled the performance in response to public
protest over Redgrave's participation because
of her support of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Redgrave sought recovery for:
| • |
Breach
of contract for the cancellation of her performance;
and |
| • |
Violation
of her civil rights under The Massachusetts
Civil Rights Act (MCRA). |
On
the breach of contract claim, Redgrave was ultimately
rewarded damages in the amount of her stipulated
performance fee plus damages for loss of future
professional opportunities by potential employers.

However, Redgrave did not prevail on the MCRA
claim. The MCRA provides for a private right of
action against any person who interferes by “threats,
intimidation or coercion” with the exercise
of another person’s rights secured by the
constitution United States. (See Mass. Gen. Laws
Ann. ch. 12, § 11H (1984)). The court ruled
that the BSO’s cancellation of the concert
was itself an exercise of free speech.
Namely, the right to be free from compelled expression.
The Court noted that the MCRA is an unusual statute
because it creates a private cause of action for
the suppression of speech by one private individual
or entity of another, whereas the right to free
speech traditionally applies only in relation
to state action. |
|
| These
materials are not intended, and should not be used, as
legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations
that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances.
Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent
rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations.
Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome.
Please send to ncac@ncac.org. |
|
Action Alerts
» National
» Eastern
» Central
» Mountain
» Pacific
» email alert sign-up
» report censorship!
|