Lamb of God

[CapNColostomy]

LAMB OF GOD are being forced to step aside from one of their arena concerts on the upcoming Subliminal Verses Tour with SLIPKNOT, because of their name LAMB OF GOD and former moniker BURN THE PRIEST.

 

The venue, The Forum in Los Angeles, is owned by The Faithful Central Bible Church, who decided to impose a ruling to ban LAMB OF GOD's performance at their venue.

 

LAMB OF GOD have come off of several extremely successful headline runs through L.A. in the last year, so this move comes completely unexpected for the band and the tour as a whole. Los Angeles is, and has always been, a huge market for the band, building steadily with each one of their releases and tours as well as and exploding with the bands current CD, "Ashes of the Wake" (Epic).

 

In deciding to ban LAMB OF GOD's performance, The Faithful Central Bible Church are imposing on the public's freedom of speech, choice and assembly; the band's art along with the bands ability to conduct commerce.

 

Drummer Chris Adler commented, "The 'situation' in L.A. can only be described as ridiculous. It's already been a huge waste of energy trying to turn this around. The powers that be aren't interested budging — or doing their research apparently — and we've never been a band to placate anyone to get our way, smooth things over or make anyone feel better. They have made it clear that they don't want us because of our name, our show and our crowd — because of that ignorance, LAMB OF GOD is not being permitted to appear on the Subliminal Verses concert in L.A. It's truly a shame for the show overall, especially for our friends and fans in L.A. that are being forced to miss our part of the show. Trust that this was not our decision, we'd love to kick some ass in L.A., but apparently the word from the powers that be is that LAMB OF GOD is not the wholesome family fun that the good people of Los Angeles deserve."

 

Seemed good enough for senate fun, so discuss. Or not.

[edlib]

Sorry, but I feel that if someone owns a venue and doesn't want you to perform there, that they have every right not to let you, even if it means hurting themselves financially. Nobody can be forced to have a performer they find distasteful perform on property they own, simple as that.

 

You just can't walk into any property, say a church, and get up and start talking about whatever you want without being expected to be kicked out if the owners decide to do so. In this case the rights of a private property owner supercede the rights of public free speech, simply because you are not in a public venue.

 

I work at a concert venue, and we reserve the right to reject any band for any reason, as well as the right to kick them out once they're there if we deem it necessary. This will mean a loss of money for us, and strained relations with the promoters... but we will do it if needed.

 

I don't see that as a stifling of "Free Speech" in any way since I have the right, on my private property, to allow whom I want to use the stage, and whom I don't. That band can go anywhere else and play, and somebody who wants them there is more than welcome to have them and make a profit off thier performance.

 

If it were the City, State, or Federal authorities banning the concert when the venue and audience clearly wanted it, or if it were a publicly owned and controlled forum and a church group got the band cancelled, then there might be a case for moral outrage... but not when it's a private property owner.

 

I think the misunderstanding comes in the way people think of "Constitutionally Protected Freedom Of Speech" and what it protects and what it doesn't. Look it up some time. It doesn't protect ANY speech in EVERY situation, as the author of this article seems to be implying. There are limits.

[El Sitherino]

I agree they are allowed to do as they wish with their property, but I find their reasoning incredibly stupid. *shrugs*

[ZBomber]

I can understand the reasons..... The crowd of a heavy metal band (Which I think this is) can tear up things when they are all pumped up because of the music.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ZBomber

I can understand the reasons..... The crowd of a heavy metal band (Which I think this is) can tear up things when they are all pumped up because of the music.

... But that's not the reason they don't want them playing. They're offended by the bands name, and that's why they aren't allowing them to play. And as far as I know Slipknot is not cancelled, just Lamb of God's act. So they heavy metal excuse is invalid.

[ZBomber]

They have made it clear that they don't want us because of our name, our show and our crowd

 

I took one of the reasons from there.

 

And, that's weird that they didn't cancel Slipknot too....

[edlib]

The reasons they gave may be stupid, but I suspect that the issue is a little more complex than that. A band known as "Lamb Of God", formally "Burn The Priest" most likely makes music with lyrics that this particular church group doesn't want to appear to be behind. Or the owners are making assumptions about the type of music...

I don't know about the other band(s) on the bill, maybe the church group doesn't have a problem with thier music (or perhaps hasn't heard it.)

 

They probably want to be seen in the community as taking a stand against bands that promote Anti-Christian viewpoints... but at the same time sell tickets to a concert that is sure to sell out (I'm sure Slipknot would sell out the venue with or without the support band, but not the other way around.) It's hypocritical,.. but there's nothing that's says they can't do that either.

 

Whatever the reasons, no matter how stupid, the band still doesn't have a case.

 

The only thing that fans of the band have left to do is boycott future shows that happen in that venue... but ultimately that only ends up hurting the bands that play there.

[toms]

i'm pretty pro free speech (see several other ongoing threads) but I have to say my first thought on reading it was "so what".

 

Quite what a bible group is doing owning an auditorium in LA that hosts Slipknot is beyond me... but if they do indeed own it then it is entirely up to them who they want to play there.

 

I'm surprised they would want to own such a business venture, and i would think it would be in their financial interests to seperate their beliefs from the running of the business.. but they are under no obligation to do so. I'm also surprised they would view slipknot as suitable if they are going to base their decisions on those sorts of grounds... but then again, I suppose it is almost refershing that they are even willing to tollerate such "devil music"

 

I mean, come on, "burn the priest"????? Its a silly name anyway, but if they picked their names to shock (as i suspect they did) they can't complain if it works.

 

Of course, i know nothing about them, maybe they are one of those dire "creed style" religious rock bands that america produces, in which case i guess they could argue their new name was meant to praise god not to cause controversy. But based on the earlier name i doubt it.

 

I have issues when owners of powerful national and international orgainnisations and media outlets use their own personal religious and political views to influence people... but i also try to respect people's own beliefs in their own homes/buildings.