A few have emailed me with variations on this point, with respect to this post:
"Our freedom of speech, in this society, entitles us to say and express anything (other than direct incitement to violence, libel/slander, and a few similar conditions) we wish to without fear of government suppression, imprisonment, or violence.
However, Americans are lazy and spoiled when it comes to this right, and fundamentally misunderstand it. A freedom of speech is not a freedom to say whatever you wish with no conceivable negative reaction or consequence. My grocer is perfectly free to call me a "kike" without fear of being arrested and imprisoned, and needs not fear and violent response from me. However, he is not free from consequences … I can organize a boycott of his store, even successfully drive him out of business in this manner, without violating any principle of freedom of expression or his right to say whatever he feels like.
It is pretty clear to me, that Mr. Nicola (the man mentioned in the NYTimes article that postponed the show) is nervous about his own economic well-being, or his potential future in the theatre business, or negative attention and perhaps demonstrations against the play in question. Our freedom of expression is not a freedom to express ourselves while maintaining our easy, anonymous, middle class lives. To truly express controversial opinions, even in the United States, you put these things at risk."
It’s unclear from the article that Mr Nicola was actively pressured by Jewish groups to postpone the production; rather, "after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work," he decided to take a punt. There are fine nuances here; and I should have been more attuned to them. Anne Applebaum has some relevant thoughts about this kind of thing today as well.
The Dish 