Larry, K.,

The spuriousness of your argument in the first paragraph is obvious. No one would pay $50.00 to hear Linda Ronstadt's bass player by himself either. But you wouldn't argue the bass player should be kicked out on that basis. No one would pay $50.00 just to hear the introductions to her songs, but you may reasonably expect that she WILL introduce them. We might even ask "what the hell do I care why this song is important to Linda Ronstadt," or "there are plenty of other opportunities for Linda Ronstadt to publish her opinions and reflections on the songs she sings." All true, but no one objects to her introducing her songs on stage. It's only the politics that got up people's butts. Remember, people were not forced to endure an hour of political chat with Linda Ronstadt; all she did was dedicate a song to Michael Moore. We're talking about a five second sentence.   

I agree with the rest of what you say, with a caveat: while it is true that "the audience" has every right to say what it wants as well, "the audience" in this case was equally divided between cheers and boos. So if the audience members merely expressed their own opinions, there would have been no fracas at all, and no one would be crying that Ronstadt should not have mentioned Moore, or that now that she mentioned him she should take her lumps, which seems to be your implication.

After the song, according to some sources, a few of the booers also chose to throw cocktails and vandalize the venue. Note that they do NOT have every right to do that. Thus, a small minority among the people who didn't like Michael Moore, chose to express themselves with illegal, immoral, dangerous and thuggish behavior, in order to intimidate the venue into taking some action against Ronstadt. And the venue fell right in line, blaming her for their crimes.

So while I agree with your statement that the audience has a right to speak, or to vote with their wallets, remember it does not have the right to do what these jokers did.