The Artist's Dilemma: Free Speech, Influence and the Trap of Crisis Profiteering
My position on freedom of expression within any societal system is fundamentally fixed and unchanging. I believe it’s unreasonable to even debate whether an individual in a democratic society should be able to express their opinions and ideas unconditionally and without restrictions, regardless of their intellectual, religious, or ideological backgrounds. Certainly, I agree with, and even defend, absolute freedom of opinion and expression, and believe in countering one opinion with another, not with handcuffs and threats, for the general public and not just for artists.
More Than a Performer: Art as a Voice for the Voiceless
This right cannot be restricted for artists either, just because their influence is wider due to their popularity and fame. I agree that an artist should use their voice and talent to broadcast their views and consequently amplify the voices of those who agree with them, since they possess the factor of wide influence and reach. This also completes their mission as an artist, which goes beyond merely an entertainment role to a role of defending societal issues and opinions, and playing the part of a voice for the voiceless.
However, I make an exception to this stance in only one case: when the artist oversteps their right to express an opinion and begins issuing pronouncements on political, legal, or institutional matters without any understanding or knowledge of how the state is run, or out of ignorance of the structure of institutions, societal norms, or directions.
This is especially true in times of public tension or protest movements, because this opens the door to misinformation and unwise, negative guidance of individuals within society, which can create a societal rift resulting in clashes between opposing sides. This is something that can also lead to other behaviors that harm the public life of individuals. Therefore, when it comes to political matters, for example, the artist can state their opinion and orientation without going beyond that to making proposals.
Why Specialists Must Lead Policy Dialogue
From an ethical and true citizenship perspective, space should be given to specialists: journalists, thinkers, politicians, human rights activists, and the spectrum of the intellectual class in general, to contribute when the situation moves beyond needing an opinion to needing information and uncovering the actual truth, or the need to propose solutions or make political judgments.
Because this is their specialty, and they will speak on it based on their knowledge of laws and the functioning of institutions, thus leaving no room for spreading misconceptions and falsehoods that might increase the intensity of anger on the streets. This anger could undoubtedly lead to a loss of control over protest movements and their deviation from the legitimate, peaceful path. Consequently, this contributes to creating a pretext and reasons for the state and authorities to abort a movement whose goal is to wrest legitimate rights in accordance with the law and constitution. In this case, the artist would have contributed more harm than good to their audience.
WATCH نصائح ل genz212 | ayoub zeri & Achraf Qorchi | Zeri and Qorchi shared advice with Gen Z protesters and activists on how to leverage social media reach and manage the public spotlight to make the best of the current situation.
False Flags and Fan Incitement: The Cost of Self-Promotion
Unfortunately, there is also a reservation concerning the personal intentions of artists in their reactions regarding any popular movement. It is certain that a group of them express their opinions in good faith, believing in their principles and defending demands they share with the people. In my opinion, this is sincere advocacy through the medium of art’s message; it is ethically and legally permissible, even commendable, praiseworthy, and necessary.
However, there is another group of artists who choose to latch onto the prevailing and dominant opinion to gain a stockpile of popular support, which is later used to achieve the artist’s personal goals. Here, the topic of the popular protest movement is incorporated and used for, say, artistic marketing and increasing views by spreading lies and fake news related to them, without any awareness that the news could cause a security breakdown.
For example, when a particular artist publishes news of their arrest during protests, only to emerge hours later to deny the news after it has spread, and then immediately releases a song after having drawn public attention to themselves, without considering that this action might charge their fans and audience with negative emotions prompting them to vandalism, for instance, or to incitement before the news is denied.
It can also distract public focus from the more important matter, the movement and struggle for demands, and direct it towards something less important, which is an artistic release by this artist. This might reduce the media pressure on the government, which the people are seeking to subdue to their demands. Thus, the artist harms the public, benefits only themselves, and places themselves in the category of a crisis profiteer.
Conclusion: The Double-Edged Sword of Artistic Activism
To conclude, the artist’s role in social and political discourse is a powerful double-edged sword. In my humble view, and this is my personal opinion, which I hold and is certainly open to discussion and debate, this cannot be considered freedom of expression since there is a potential for it to cause public harm.
