Conference mr1pst::music

    
    I think part of this bill has merit. If a teenager can't buy a Playboy
    or playgirl, then why are they allowed to buy some of this music.
    Personally I don't see anything wrong with this, but I know some
    parents would like to have better control over what their kids listen
    to. The part I think has merit, is that some music talk of rape and
    child pornagraphy. There is one song that (I forget the group and
    song), that rap about the raping of a 14 year old girl. And the song is
    very explicit. If this was in print, it'd be illegal to sell it. But
    because it's in music, it's considered ART!!!! 
    
    Mike

    I agree...having an "age limit" (same with movies, books and magazines)
    is better than all-out banning (taking notes, Florida?)...
    
    but once again, the age-old and never-answered questions...
    
    WHO is qualified to pick what goes under the limit?
    
    WHAT qualifies an album to be put under the category?
    
    WHERE is the line going to be drawn between "rights of free speech" and
    (to me) unnecessary foul language?
    
    And HOW FAR BACK are they going to go thru the music?  Will they pick
    on The Who's "Who Are You"?  Or Pink Floyd's "Money"?  Is it going to
    be limited to Rock'n'Roll and Rap, or are they going to hit Country,
    Jazz, Classical, Opera, as well?
    
    Is "Wake Up, Little Suzie" going to be picked on again because it
    involves an unmarried couple (literally) "sleeping together"?
    
    ALL of the above questions are rhetorical...PLEASE don't answer them!
    
    K.C.

It *is* interesting what an uproar things like this cause. It would seem
difficult, if not impossible, to defend total artistic license, regardless of
the "adult nature" of content, in *musical* arts without extending the same
to visual arts- i.e., print media and movies.

It's a sticky issue, to be sure, assigning the role of "morality judge" to
some person, body, or process in order to police laws such as this. How is it
done in the case of magazines and movies? Why is it possible in those cases and
not in this one?

I hope this note series doesn't devolve into a flame war, as it is actually a
complex and thought-provoking issue, with valid arguments on both sides. It does
seem, IMHO, eminently reasonable to "filter" concepts which have the potential to
adversely affect young minds not yet capable of understanding them and making
their own judgements. The difficulty comes about in deciding how to do this
without stifling artistic expression as a side effect.

Bob

    In this week's entry in the "I told you so" (in this case "I" being
    many, many people in this conference), the benign labeling effort of
    the PMRC has turned into a matter of criminal legality.
    
    So now record stores in Washington have to "card people" who want to
    buy music - and they get to go to jail if they screw up. Johnny uses
    his fake ID to buy NWA and the record store manager does time.
    Meanwhile, Johnny's parents abdicate *all* responsibility in the raising
    of their child. "So what if Johnny turns out to be a complete scumbag.
    The state will look after him. Or the record store. Either way, it
    don't matter to us, we're *not responsible*"
    
    And it is no surprise that rap is the target. We can't have those
    dangerous African American or Latino types invading our White Bread
    world with those dangerous ideas about what it's like to be raised
    in a crime infested ghetto... No Sir.
    
    Did it ever occur to any one of these empty-skulled zealots that the
    lyrics are not intended to encourage violence, they are intended to
    chronicle it! This is what *is* happening. It's OK if the urban poor
    kill/rape/exploit each other as long as they don't SING about it,
    right?
    
    Send a *subtle* message to the music industry? Yeah real subtle.
    
    David Duke must be very happy.
    
    I'm definitely not.
    
    Brian
    (A parent who thinks this sux)

Re -1:

Brian- do you feel the same way about sexually explicit video and magazine
sales? Those which advocate rape, sadism, etcetera? If not *why* not? I'd
really love to understand why folks get *so* upset about applying what seems
like a reasonable guideline to music, but not when it's something else.

And BTW- I too am a parent, and I'd appreciate it if you don't imply that anyone
who doesn't outright condemn "rating" of music is abdicating their
responsibilties. That's pretty close to the edge. I have a four-year-old, and
I realize that he'll be "out in the world" in the proverbial wink of an eye.
There are several "interesting" adult concepts to which I personally don't think
he should be exposed until he can understand them.

You state that "empty-headed zealots" don't realize that these songs don't
advocate violence, yet you expect children to catch this distinction- I think
that's the whole point of rating music, to keep it from being misunderstood by
people- the very young- who can't put it into its proper persepective. I'm
neither empty-headed nor particularly zealous about this topic, but I *do* think
that flinging cavalier denigrating comments back and forth does little to
illuminate the issue.

Sure, making it illegal to sell kids music of an adult nature won't prevent
them from acquiring it, but note that you don't find magazines of such a nature
in the grocery store at present. Again I ask anyone who has an answer, how can
you support free access to music with explicit content and not feel the same
way about *all* forms of audio, video, and print expression? I think it's
possible to legitimately support either a pro or con position on this topic, but
not both.

Bob

	This is really simple, it's a free country, the 1st amendment
	to the constitution guarantees the right to free speech so the
	government should _quit_ trying to regulate it, as it is clearly
	and obviously a restriction on liberty.  Period.

	This applies to all forms of expression, and if you think these
	materials encourage people to do badness, I would only ask you
	to consider the roles of good parenting and personal responsibility.
	The latter, in particular, is inherent in the concept of a democratic
	society.   If you don't like the idea of people taking responsibility
	for their own actions, then perhaps a totalitarian state is more to
	your liking.

	All else is simply a matter of degree.  There's no room for
	fence-sitting on this one (although plenty of pandering politicians
	love to obscure the issue).

	My $0.02.

Ok, we've got one answer. Tom thinks we should live with no laws. S&M should
be freely intermixed with Saturday morning cartoons, all drugs should be
completely legal (prostitution as well), with no regard for age of the user or
seller. Most all else follows logically.

Noone's mentioned people being "encouraged to do badness" by music as far as I'm
aware. Children can, however, encounter ideas in some of this stuff which no
parent can fully explain to them, and they can get mighty confused. I simply
don't feel I, as a *responsible* parent, should be required to try to explain
to my preschooler what a prostitute is, or why some non-minorities feel
compelled to commit atrocities against people from a different race or religion.
Do I have no right to exercise my own parental judgement? If "anything goes" as
soon as my son is out the door, I lose the option. There must be *some*
guidelines, wherever they are drawn.

There seems to be little or no appreciation of the finer distinctions of liberty
involved in this topic. What's being discussed is the right of the *adults* in a
society to establish a standard for the social environment in which the
*children* of a society come to maturity. So far the responses indicate that it's
not OK for anyone to introduce their children to adult concepts at what they
feel is an appropriate time, but it *is* OK for anyone who sees fit to usurp my
parental judgement and expose my child to said concepts as they like.

Let's distinguish between free expression of artistic concept among adults and
free license to expose children to those concepts. They're being lumped together
in previous replies, and that's just plain old sloppy thinking.

Bob

    
    RE: .6
    
    Bob,
    
    My comments are not intended to swipe at all. I made it as plain as
    day how I feel, no swipe intended. Slap, maybe.
    
    First of all, I think this law has racist overtones, which do not apply
    to general "pornography". Let me explain:
    
    It is obvious by the examples given by the proponents of this law that
    they feel that "rap" is the biggest culprit. Record stores are *not*
    going to be too eager to enfornce this law. There are too many
    questions about what "lines" to draw. So, they'll make it easy on
    themselves and simply stop selling music that could get them into
    trouble. This is *clearly* what the "Gov." and his wife (who sounds
    like she's really the gov, if you ask me) want.
    
    Let's stop selling urban Black/Latino music altogether until these people
    stop offending us... right? Wrong!
    
    Art, in general, is characteristic of a culture, whereas pornography is
    not. Explicit sexual photos, if you want to use that as your test of
    pornography, are not unique to any cultural group, per-se. That is why
    two men peeing on one another is pornography no matter how it is
    photographed.
    
    However, language is another matter entirely. We are imposing on other
    cultures our white anglo-saxon interpretations of certain words and
    phrases. We may be shocked by "OPP", but the bottom line is that's
    simply not a schocker to other people. It's the "language of the
    streets.", or at least certain streets. To us it might seem like a very
    demeaning or derogatory phrase, but to other people it is not. Whereas,
    two people photographed doing the horizontal bop leaves little room for
    interpretation, now doesn't it?
    
    I have a four and a six year old and I have NO fear of them being
    effected by this. Why? Because they'll never buy anything that I don't
    personally approve of; *by* listening to it. If I don't like it, it's
    going back to the record store. Period. Neither one of them are making
    much of a paycheck at the moment - know what I mean - and if *my* money's
    doing the buying, *I* get to say what gets bought. I'm bloody
    responsible for what they listen to, no one else is.
    
    When they have the money to buy their own recordings, I'll give them
    the benefit of the doubt and assume they have the maturity to deal with
    it. Even then, I intend to stay on top of what they're listening to,
    for two reasons:
    
    	1. It will be a chance for me to hear new music
    
    	2. I can continue to control as much parental influence as I
    	   feel is necessary.
    
    And, using the chief proponent's example, let me make it clear that
    if one of my teenagers (when they get there) plays sexually explicit
    music in front of a four year old, they'll never see their twenties.
    I don't expect a record retailer to deal with the problem.
    
    In fact, I have an interesting "case in point". I have a recording done
    by some DEC friends of the song "Jumping Jack Flash" that has the line
    "Jumping Jack Flash it's a f*cking gas" in it. I play this song
    *all*the time, and my kids love it! First time I played it for them I
    told them that the song has a "dirty" word in it and that if I hear
    them repeat it they're in trouble. That was the end of it. Only once,
    my four year old asked me "why does he say that Daddy?" and I just
    responded "heat of the moment, I guess.".
    
    This example is intended to illustrate the fact that I feel it is
    important to point out what is wrong and why the children should not
    repeat it, but not to imply that someone is "bad" for having said it
    in the first place. Otherwise, I'd be denying my children the
    opportunity to listen to some great music...
    
    As a person with general "libertarian" views (although I am not a
    member of the libertarian party since it is run, primarily, by and
    for, tax scofflaws) I get my dander up much more over issues of civil
    liberty than I do over the need for the government to regulate things.
    
    Brian
    (who's in a particularly honest and fiesty mood today).

    Re: .8
    
>Ok, we've got one answer. Tom thinks we should live with no laws. S&M should
>be freely intermixed with Saturday morning cartoons, all drugs should be
>completely legal (prostitution as well), with no regard for age of the user or
>seller. Most all else follows logically.

    Shhhhh!  Take it easy.  No one (two words there, friend), is saying any
    such thing.
    
>I simply
>don't feel I, as a *responsible* parent, should be required to try to explain
>to my preschooler what a prostitute is, or why some non-minorities feel
>compelled to commit atrocities against people from a different race or religion.
    
    Why not?  They're YOUR kids.  Why should someone ELSE be responsible
    for giving YOUR child this information, either way?  Better from you
    than a stranger...even if that stranger is Kindly Mr. Congressman.
    
>Do I have no right to exercise my own parental judgement? If "anything goes" as
>soon as my son is out the door, I lose the option. There must be *some*
>guidelines, wherever they are drawn.

    You can draw your own guidelines.  USE your "own parental judgement" to
    show your child(ren) how YOU feel about certain topics.
    
>So far the responses indicate that it's
>not OK for anyone to introduce their children to adult concepts at what they
>feel is an appropriate time, but it *is* OK for anyone who sees fit to usurp my
>parental judgement and expose my child to said concepts as they like.

    And it is YOUR job as a parent to monitor what they hear, see, witness,
    while they are very young.  Take advantage of your "parental
    judgement".  When someone (a song, a movie, whatever) tries to "expose
    your child to a concept" (paraphrasing), take advantage and DISCUSS it.
    
    The government should not have to raise our children.  That is our
    jobs.  A lot of the groups (music, movies, etc.) who release the
    "risque'" material, do so for this kind of press.  The more attention,
    the better.  There are 3 things we have to use ourselves...our brains,
    our better judgement, and the "on/off" button.  ;^)
    
    Back to .8...please, I'm not angry at you...just taking a side on an
    argument.  NONE of the above is a flame...not even a sputter.
    
    K.C.

Thanks, Bri. Much clearer and more precise. I don't know the specifics or history
of this particular law, beyond what's in the base note. It does seem like a
reasonable idea, though, fundamentally- except that it has acquired (ahem)
rather a lot of reflexive emotional response.

On language, our house rules tend to be more universally applied- "If you can
say it, why shouldn't I?" just doesn't come up. (Not to diminish your approach,
to each his own...)

I hate government regulation as well, BTW- there is a difference, though,
between government regulation and the use of government (this is self-government,
after all) by a society to regulate itself. Don't mean to split hairs; to me
it's a fair distinction.

Oh, one thing you should plan on, just so you're not blind-sided: once in school,
kids with cassette players swap music even more than lunches. (No, I'm not
prescient, we had a foster child in elementary school...)

Bob

K.C.'s note went in while I was penning mine.

K.C., you missed some points:

My issue is with others requiring me to explain an adult concept to my child at
what I feel is an inappropriate age. I'd prefer to do this in my own time.
Taking that timing away from me makes my parental judgement a no-op. Also, I
can't control- without reasonable laws governing society- what my child is
exposed to outside my house. Society makes laws to control our environment to
what we agree on as a "sane" degree.

On Tom's position, I was trying to make the point that either you agree *some*
self-regulation is appropriate, or you don't. Tom stated fairly baldly that
*ANY* limitation on self-expression is offensive to him. To me, I only
pointed out the logical result of that position.

Bob

    Bob;
    
    On the subject of language - I'm not saying that I have a different
    standard for language than I set for my children. If they aren't
    supposed to "swear", neither am I. Now, when that screw-driver went
    into my palm yesterday while I was fixing the draw slide in the kitchen
    cabinets, I let out a few explitives that were definitely outa bounds.
    But, I just don't feel comfortable asking mommy to kiss my boo boo. :-)
    
    On the other hand... (pun alert :- ) )
    
    I take my kids to a ball game and they hear all kinds of things I'd
    prefer they didn't. I can't really control that. So, I don't get
    uptight about it. I just pretend not to notice and try not to talk
    that way myself.
    
    Right now, if my kids swap tapes, it's likely to be Raffi. So, no
    major problem there. Seriously though, in my experience, really young
    kids don't care for music that would appeal to teens anyway. It's not
    like my kids insist on listening to NWA. My son just wants a screaming
    guitar solo (a metal head since birth) and my daughter wants classical
    (a "tortured artiste" from birth).
    
    Maybe I have no sympathy with this law because I can't imagine the
    circumstances under which I'd need it. I just feel uncomfortable with
    the idea of government regulating art, and the sale of art. I feel even
    worse when I smell racist overtones. That *really* gets me going.
    
    Brian

    Bob,
    
    I used to be VERY active in this note in the old MUSIC file.  While
    I am against record labelling, if you look in the old MUSIC, you will
    see that the vast majority of my notes were keeping fellow
    anti-labellers honest (a sort of devil's advocate).
    
    I mention this because I want to establish myself as someone who
    is against labelling but acknowledges the "needs" that are behind
    it as valid (but seeks other ways).
    
    But while I acknowledge the validity of the purpose, I have SERIOUS
    problems with the implementation.  It is just far too vague.
    
    How is a record store owner supposed to know what albums a court
    will find "patently offensive" or "utterly without redeeming social
    values"?  Is a record store owner also supposed to familiarize
    themselves with the content of every record a minor might wish to
    purchase?
    
    Are you willing to send a man to jail merely because some judge with 
    no appreciation for rock (and thus, no concept of what is artistically
    valued in rock) can't find any redeeming social value?
    
    I honestly find that VERY scary and HIGHLY unreasonable.
    
    The only safe reaction of record stores is to not sell those albums
    which have ANY risk of being judged that way.  I'm QUITE sure that
    includes stuff that even YOU would have no objection to.
    
    It would be one thing to IDENTIFY those works which could not be sold
    to minors, but it's a whole other thing to arbitrarily decide ex post
    facto whether they "should've been sold" and send people to jail
    for it is a Orwellian nightmare in my opinion.
    
    	db

    Yeah, the law has all kinds of problems with it. It can't possibly
    stand up in court -- I don't  think.
    
    But the issue it's addressing, however horribly, is important. I like a
    lot of your descriptions of how you're raising your children, Brian,
    but I feel that it's not enough of a response to the problem of sick,
    horrible videos, lyrics, films being shown or heard by young kids. The
    reason it's not enough of a response is this: lots and lots of parents
    don't have the energy, commitment, and honesty that you clearly do. I
    mean, lots of parents are stumbling around in a fog of depression,
    overwork, indifference, or confusion. 
    
    Sounds horrible -- but I'm not putting them down -- I really mean that lots
    of people aren't clear in their own minds about how important this is,
    or how to deal with it.
    
    As a result, their kids don't get a clear message from their parents.
    These kids are without guidance. Because they don't have a sane haven
    in the four walls of their house, they're constantly exposed to
    the insanity and violence of the culture with no responsible adult
    telling them, in effect, "Yes, these violent things exist, but they're
    not the only way to be. I try to be different, and I want you to try, too."
    
    I wonder if the only acceptable situation is one in which the
    larger culture can sell/show/give anything at all, no matter how sick
    or violent, to kids, and only those kids with strong, really able
    parents have recourse to another set of values? Is it truly impossible
    to set any limits on what kids can be sold/shown, given?
    
    True, this law stinks. But can any kind of acceptable limit be set by
    the larger society? After all, we are supposedly a society, not just a
    great sea of isolated families. For example, people without kids also
    have a stake in the welfare of every generation of kids. 
    
    Hope I'm saying this clearly. This issue really concerns me as a
    playwright and arts lover. I've certainly written stuff Helms would
    love to make disappear (but I'm not prominent enough to have come to
    his attention). 
    
    Brian, I have no quibble with your pointing out the obvious racism of
    the governor's concerns. Why didn't this guy get upset enough to act in
    response to all the years and years of violent heavy metal and punk
    music/lyrics/videos -- largely made by white folks?
    
    Three cheers for everyone who's participated in this discussion so far.
    I think we're doing well with a tough issue -- one of the toughest.

    
>>    How is a record store owner supposed to know what albums a court
>>    will find "patently offensive" or "utterly without redeeming social
>>    values"?  Is a record store owner also supposed to familiarize
>>    themselves with the content of every record a minor might wish to
>>    purchase?
    
    If each record is rated like a video, then there wouldn't be a problem.
    X , R , PG-13 and G. I don't think anyone here is advocating the
    prevention of artists in publishing their work. But there must be some
    kind of control on the sale of such material. There's government
    control on Playboy and Penthouse, yet these magazines still seem to be
    able to publish what they want and still make a lot of sales in doing
    so. Why can't the same be for records???? A parent SHOULD have a say
    into what their child can bring into their house, and what they can
    listen to. Is a parent suppose to listen to every record their kid
    buys to make sure it dosn't contain any pornographic material. If the
    records were labeled, the parents upon looking at the album can
    determine if they want their kid to listen the album. I sure as hell
    wouldn't want my 14 year old watchin/listening to something that's
    rated X (that is if I had a 14 year old).
    
>>    Are you willing to send a man to jail merely because some judge with 
>>    no appreciation for rock (and thus, no concept of what is artistically
>>    valued in rock) can't find any redeeming social value?
    
    I don't think anyone will end up in jail if this happans.
    
    Mike

    Nancy,
    
    I agree there's a problem, but the solution is worse. What the problem
    *really* is is that the family has broken down. We're starting to
    accept that as fact, and *worse*, we're starting to legislate around
    it. I'm sorry that a lot of modern folks are under societal pressure
    that makes them less than ideal parents. I don't really have a solution
    to the problem. I'm not trying to bully pulpit here. I'm definitely not
    an ideal parent; far from it, in fact.
    
    There is a general breakdown in our society of values. You say that we
    are a society and not a group of individual families and that a
    societal fix is needed. I agree.
    
    In fact, we need a greater push toward "society" and a push away from
    Tribalism. Pick any two warring people and the bottom line is always
    "we're a such-and-such and you're not".
    
    However, I feel that the family is an inclusionary thing, not an
    exclusionary thing. The family is intended to make someone feel part of
    something. To give them a sense of social responsibility. To impress upon
    them the effect their actions have on others. To provide a guiding light.
    
    Our societal pressure should be directed toward parents that aren't
    holding up their end of the bargain, not toward the entertainment
    industry. Another need is a much better educational system. Our
    "Education President" isn't doing *anything* about this that I can
    percieve. A good education is the key to busting the cycle of violence
    and abuse that a lot of children suffer. In fact, my vote this year will
    be mostly predicated upon who has the best ideas about education
    (listen up George! So far, you're not even in the running!!!!!!).
    
    If we stem the tide, it will be through the family and the classroom,
    not through dimwitted laws.
    
    As for .16's comments about "no one going to jail", tell that to the
    record store owner in Florida. Don't think for one minute that a law
    such as this in the hands of the authoritarian facist police structure
    would go unused. I'm waiting for the first videotaped beating of a
    sales clerk at Strawberries...
    
    Brian

>K.C., you missed some points:

>My issue is with others requiring me to explain an adult concept to my child at
>what I feel is an inappropriate age. I'd prefer to do this in my own time.
>Taking that timing away from me makes my parental judgement a no-op. Also, I
>can't control- without reasonable laws governing society- what my child is
>exposed to outside my house. Society makes laws to control our environment to
>what we agree on as a "sane" degree.

    If your child is old enough to ask questions, you could handle it in
    one of 2 ways...
    
    1) assume that if the child is old enough to ask, they are old enough
    to handle some kind of explanation - even lightened a bit.
    
    2) explain to THEM that this is something that can be discussed at a
    later date, when they are a bit older.
    
    Both of these work...my parents used it, and so have a number of
    parents that I know.
    
    And Re: .16
    
    What would be considered x-rated?  (my fave example) in the Who's song,
    "Who Are You?" there is definite R-rated language ("Who the F**K are
    you?") but is the SONG R-rated?  Little fuss was made when it came out,
    and people tend to forget.  Pink Floyd's song "Money" has the word
    "Bulls**t" in it...how can THAT be rated?  Even Tipper's fave target,
    "Darling Nikki" mentions "the "M" word"...but only in one instance. 
    The rest of the song consists on a single sexual act between consenting
    adults.  Nothing wierd, and details aren't even dwelled upon.
    
    There are too many shades of grey, and too many songs, to make rating
    records feasable.  If there WERE a way, then fine.  But there isn't. 
    The songs I used in the examples I happen to like, and am not offended
    by them.  Would I let a child listen to them?  Probably.  The first 2 I
    definitely would (I have a tried and true "dirty word" speech that I
    gave to my brother when he was 6 - it worked.)  The instrumental to 
    "Darling Nikki" may itself be too intense for a child to enjoy.  But if
    I didn't want a child of mine to hear them...THAT IS MY CHOICE.
    
    Gee...this was long winded, even for ME!  :^)
    
    No offense meant,
    K.C.

    Lots of good points here....
    
    But here are mine....
    
    A parent should know what their kids listen to and should review
    the content....but as stated before how do you know if your kids got
    such and such or is listening to whats his face outside the home ?
    You tell them right from wrong and hope they get it !
    
    I'm a single father of an 8yr old girl, she doesn't go tostrawberries 
    and buy lots of music without me (if she is I'd like to know where she
    gets the money I need some :') , she will pick out a few tapes once a 
    month, when I take her to the store, bring them to me and I give the 
    thums up or down,not that Im a big fan of her taste in music mind you 
    but I do keep up with whos doing what (I might be the exception to 
    the rule here, Hey I watch The Week in Rock and read RS :'). She
    is into (no longer MC) Hammer and Boyz II Men and I, painful as it 
    was, listened to these tapes and read the linernotes...now when she 
    gos to the roller skating place in Hudson she hears music I can't 
    control but somewhere along the way shes been told whats what by me 
    and her mother...why ?
    
    well kids now a days can not be stupid to the real world, it won't give
    them a break or the second chance and I can't always be there to save
    the day although it is my sole purpose in life to do so !....IMO kids 
    need to know what a hooker is or who the pushers are and understand 
    why....a little knowage gos a long way.....maybe they will not end up 
    like these people and hopefully they will grow up clean and healthy 
    in mind and body. (more then I can say for myself)
    
    now thats a lot of good wishes to be gotten from listening to the right
    music....but I will not let some person that might not be able to
    balance a check book tell me what is a "Clean" or a "Dirty".
    also these bible thumpers telling me "Mary had a little Lamb" means
    something different then a girl named Mary who has a pet Lamb.
    but thats another note (I'm sure)
    
    to finish up here, thats me, you do what you want as long as it doesn't
    hurt someone else....I don't have the right to tell you how to live so
    please don't tell me how to live and bring up my child, I do just fine
    by myself. (aimed at no one here just a overall view)
    
    
    Chris

    
>    If each record is rated like a video, then there wouldn't be a problem.
    
    This is what I said.
    
    > I don't think anyone here is advocating the prevention of artists in 
    > publishing their work. 
    
    I differ from most anti-labellers in that I do not call record
    labelling "censorship".  However, this law is clearly censorship
    because the inevitable effect is to prevent the distribution of
    such work by instilling fear of prosecution.
    
    > There's government control on Playboy and Penthouse, yet these magazines 
    > still seem to be able to publish what they want and still make a lot of 
    > sales in doing so. Why can't the same be for records???? 
    
    I don't think it is a crime to sell those magazines to a minor. 
    
    > If the records were labeled, the parents upon looking at the album can
    > determine if they want their kid to listen the album.
    
    Records do NOT need to have labels on them.  I think the "Parents
    Music Resource Center" should become just that: a "resource center".
    
    THEY should do the ratings and they should do things like provide a
    hotline to inquire about specific albums, publish a listing of ratings,
    etc.   The ratings do NOT need to be on the albums, and thus they
    don't even need buy-in from the music industry!
    
    Leaving the ratings up to the record companies and artists (as is
    currently done) seems like leaving the fox in charge of the hens.
    
>    I don't think anyone will end up in jail if this happans.
    
    I think it will because .0 says it would be a "crime", not a
    "misdemeanor".  But it doesn't matter.  People should not be subject
    to any kind of punishment when what constitutes the crime is so
    arbitrarily and subjectively determined.
    
>    Is a parent suppose to listen to every record their kid
>    buys to make sure it dosn't contain any pornographic material. 
    
    During the Senate hearing on record labelling, Senator Hollings asked
    Dee Snider of Twisted Sister essentially this same question.
    
    He asked (quoting from memory here): "Mr Snider, do you think it's
    	reasonable to expect parents to listen to every record their kid
     	brings home".
    
    Dee Sniders reply really hit the nail on the head:
    
    	"Senator Hollings, I *am* a parent and I can tell you first hand
    	 that being a parent isn't a 'reasonable' thing."

    
    	The saddest thing i see in this world are parents who figuratively
    put this paper-bag over their heads thinking that they and their
    children are somehow isolated from all the bad influences in this
    world.  Folks, it is all out there, in our schools, on our TV's, on
    the playgrounds!  
    
    	I have 3 teenage daughters (ages 13,15,18). We live in a small
    (6000), christian (2 catholic, 3 protestant(at least) community.
    Minorities are indeed very few in this community. But folks, there's
    drugs in the high school, and there's sex in the primary schools. There
    are children subject to incest, parental substance abuse, and all the
    other horrible things we think only happen elsewhere.  My wife, to
    her very good credit makes it a point to talk and keep honest
    communication going between them.  As do I, although natural
    embarassment on their part keeps the conversation concerning sex fairly
    limited (kids can be remarkably prudish, especially prior to puberty!).
    But they ask, we inform as frank as possible. If they ask, they've
    heard it somewhere, and you can usually be assured from a non-mature
    perspective.
    
    	Your Kids get introduced to this stuff from first grade on! How
    they perceive it depends mightily on the values you impart on them!
    The schools do not want to acknowledge it, parents do not want to
    acknowledge it, communitites refuse to acknowledge it, but folks it's
    there, and your kids hear about it, and see about it on their
    playgrounds.  Keep that bag over your head, and you are only reassuring
    yourselves - you are doing nothing for your kids!
    
    	The workplace and economy of today has both parents working,
    usually full time.  This has many, many kids out there learning this
    stuff on their own - especially if their parents are locked up in their
    own self-rightousness.  Please, talk to your kids.  Realize they learn
    a lot of things much earlier than we did.  Kids in elementary school
    ARE having SEX and ARE taking DRUGS!!!  AIDS is making it's appearance
    in our suburban worlds - not talked about in "good circles", but you
    should have a frank talk with the health-care folk, and the
    special-needs folk.   Your kids do not have to listen to pornography
    or other explicit types of media to learn these things.  
    
    	Brian is right on the mark about the racist angle concerning these
    laws. But the joke is on the racist!  I remember a friend's comments
    after a 6 month tour of South America in the early 70's. He described
    villages of complete poverty, no sanitation, physical isolation - but
    they were connected to the outside world by the portable radio! No
    longer were they exploitable by the United Fruits and other
    American/European international corporation. The radio clued them all
    in to this bigger, better world out there!
    
    	Our kids are so much more exposed than folk in South America. My
    experience over the years is that the children of the moralistic 
    loudmouths are usually the ones who are early victims - it so easy
    to fool the truely blind!
    
    	enough ranting and raving....
    
    		bob

    
    Re .19
    
    Chris,
    
    I hate to tell you this, but you have no idea what your daughter
    listens to. All you know is the label of the music she's buying. Have
    you listened to the music????
    
    
    
>>    	Your Kids get introduced to this stuff from first grade on! How
>>    they perceive it depends mightily on the values you impart on them!
    
    Exactly. So if you allow them to listen to music that depicts the rape
    of a 14 year old girl, and at the same time tell them that rape is
    wrong, don't you think they're going to get confused????
    
    Maybe rating the albums is wrong, but instead put on some kind of
    warning label saying that this music contains explict vulgar language.
    I don't think it should be up to the government to prevent teens from
    buying the material, but they should help them out in the screening
    process. I don't know too many parents that want to listen to their
    kids music to determine if it's acceptable for them to listen to. And
    besides, with records and tapes, once you buy it and open it, you
    usually can't return it. If they had some kind of labeling, I'd tell my
    kid that I don't want them listening to that kind of music. And if they
    bought it they'd be punished. But at least the control is in my hands.
    
    Mike
    
    

I've got a lot of opinions here on this subject, but there is one
thing I'd like to point out.  Give the kids some credit too.

I may not be a perfect example, because my parents were fairly strict,
but also highly communicative, but I remember whe I was little that
Playboy was OFF-LIMITS.

Well, because it was off-limits, naturally, I wanted to see one.
(I was maybe 8 or 9 anyway).  Well, one afternoon at my best buddy's
house, we found his father's stash of Playboy's.

We looked at one (and you should realize that I'm 33, so you have an
idea of how tame Playboy was then, compared to today) and it was like
"Wow".  Then we looked at another, it was like, "okay, so what's different",
and then my buddy picks up a 3rd.  We looked at each other and said
"Hey, wanna go play Cowboys and Indians?"


I'm not saying that all kids will "ignore" something that's meant for
much older folks, but I think a lot of them will.   I'm not a parent,
and I certainly tip my hat to those who are, but a lot of times we
look at kids through adult eyes, and forget what it was like when
we were kids.

Communication, love, and a good example are key.  Answer their questions
honestly, and explain why they can't do something.....


When I get around to it, I'll post my opinions on labelling.....


fw

I don't have much new to add to this- most of both sides has been covered,
*almost* without ridiculous stereotyping. Interestingly enough, said stereotyping
seems to be without exception from the "liberal" side of the issue. Keeping a
truly open mind is not easy, granted, but it's sorta funny when the defenders
of liberty are the first to exclude others from the select group who can
exercise it. For the record:

- I don't "abdicate *all* responsibility."
- I'm not an "empty-skulled zealot."
- "A totalitarian state" is not to my liking.
- I am not a "bible thumper-" though I am a committed Christian.
- I am not "locked up in my own self-rightousness."
- I am not a "moralistic loudmouth."

I'm simply trying to address the valid issue underlying the introduction of what
sounds like, after some of this discussion, a law which is severely flawed. (I
realize that some of the above comments have since been qualified or recanted,
I just wanted to illustrate how at times this discussion has generated more heat
than light.)

Much of the discussion against any rating, even advisory, seems to focus on
teenagers and older; to me, that's not really the issue. At that age, I don't
think there's any topic which can't be discussed rationally between parent and
child. What I'm talking about is the pre-adolescent years, let's say from 4 to
10 or 12 (depending on your child's sexual and intellectual maturity). While I
would give a good try at explaining topics of an adult nature to my 4-year-old
if it became necessary, I DON'T THINK IT IS DESIRABLE AT HIS AGE. (Sorry for
"shouting," but this point seems to have fallen on deaf ears.)

It's good to have a topic like this once in a while; sorta clears out the pipes.
Anyway, back to spectating for me...

Bob

    Mike,
    
    	Maybe you mis-read my note, I do listen to her music and I do know
    what the content is about....I'm sorry but I do get involved with my
    kid's world because its also my world. I ask her questions about what
    she thinks it means and I know her mother does the same. For an 8yr old
    she know more about life then I did at that age. Do you have kids ?
    
    This world of ours is full of stupid things and stupid people and if you
    don't point it out to children they will not know the difference. I
    don't like to censer music or TV or whatever but when I do I explain
    why i did so, sometimes its not well received and other times I get
    that great line "Well so&so does this or has this or watches this or
    listens to this....and so on" and I reply with the great reply of "Well
    you are not so&so, your my daughter and this is why you don't ....so
    on".
    
    	When I was @10 i bought the 1st Eagles LP and loved it for the
    music....when I was about 18 it hit me like a ton of bricks, I figured
    out just what some of the songs were about......man what a shock, not
    the content of the music but that I never knew....call me a late
    bloomer but my mom&dad were like what Bob said , they had bags over
    there heads...and I guess so did I...for one I can't remember anything
    about the Vietnam War or its ending...never saw it on the news.
    I was 11 when it ended and had more importent things to do like play
    ball and ride my bike....hell I had a great childhood. Do you think my
    child could have the same type of childhood I had ? not for a million
    bucks....the world was twisted then and is worse now. I'll be damned if
    I will put blinders on my kid and say you'll get it when you get older 
    but not from me. see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil....and you'll 
    be taken for the fool everytime.
    
    	I don't mind laws so much but this is taking something away for us.
    my rights to goveren my family as long as I don't harm or disrupt
    others in how they live......whats next, USA the next USSR ?
    
    Chris 

	re .24, you may not wish to explain adult concepts to your 4-year
	old, that is fine, then don't.   But personally I wish my folks had
	done a lot less "wait till you're older" and "I can't explain this
	to you" and "you can't look at/do that" when I was that age and older...
	I would have had a happier life.  Protection only goes so far.

	I may not have to treat my kids like adults (no I don't have any yet)
	but I will treat them with respect.  I will teach them responsibility
	right off the bat, which means mutual trust and openness.

	Speaking of respect, I really appreciate the way everybody's handled
	themselves in this thread.  It's nice to see a reasoned and polite
	discussion of a very touchy and emotional issue.

    I suspect most of you have never lived in a foreign country where the
    civil rights we take for granted in the U.S. do not exist.  I spent
    four years in South Korea in the early seventies.  At the time the
    government was much more repressive than it is today (and even today
    it's not all that wonderful over there).  
    
    Anyway, at the time, dissent was dealt with quite harshly.  I recall
    some student protests resulting in the organizers being hung!  There
    was not a lot of live rock music there and I soon found out why when I
    befriended the members of a band called He 6.  Despite playing watered
    down top 40 rock in a large prestigious nightclub in the capitol city,
    having record albums out, etc. they were continuously being persecuted
    by the police.
    
    Worse off were the bands that played in bars catering to GIs.  I
    remember one particularly talented guitarist coming in one night and a
    good portion of the body of his Gibson was missing, since he had been
    stopped by the cops the night before and had his guitar smashed.  This
    is what the guy had to put up with because he wanted to play some Bad
    Co. and Santana.
    
    As far as recorded music over there, they did sell censored records.  I
    bought the John Lennon "Plastic Ono Band" album released on the Korean
    EMI subsidiary and they had spliced out the word "f**king" in the song
    "Working Class Hero"...in fact, due to the splice, it sounds like the
    record is skipping.  I bought a Bob Dylan hits package that contained
    no protest tunes.  In fact many of his recordings were banned from
    airplay.
    
    And that sounds like paradise next to some of the stories of what rock
    and jazz musicians and fans behind the Iron Curtain used to have to put
    up with.
    
    Here in the U.S., we've already seen people get thrown in jail in
    Florida in the 2 Live Crew flap, how much further would we like to go?  
    
    						Brian

    re:181.27
    
    What you're describing in Korea is horrible. I realize you've entered
    it as an example of the worst, most extreme form of social/political
    control. It's helpful to be reminded of those extremes, but I think
    it's also helpful to continue to hang out in the confusing middle
    ground and struggle with the murky issues we find there. I don't think
    that, because the extreme exists, the middle ground shouldn't exist. I
    mean, I don't think that any attempt to exert some control, *somewhere*
    along the production-distribution-consumption line, will inevitably
    lead to a police state. 
    
    For example, the law regarding who can buy a copy of Playboy,
    Playgirl, etc., etc., seems to have been fairly static for a long time. 
    Someone in this note indicated there's an age limit: maybe somebody
    under 18 can't buy these magazines--something like that. Whatever it is
    exactly, this law hasn't to my knowledge led to arrests in the middle
    of the night, disappeared people, and so on. Instead, it seems that our
    culture has established a benchmark about this issue, and maintained
    it. We haven't progressed from there into a police state.
    
    I think that a culture can establish a benchmark and maintain it. Is
    the speed limit a fair example? There's a general societal agreement
    that speed limits are a good idea; most of us obey them most of the
    time (there's a general acceptance of some wiggle room, too). 
    
    To make an analogy between the speed limit and the current music
    controversy: There is an external, societally controlled sanction on
    our driving. We don't just leave our roads unmarked and unposted, and
    leave it up to families to say to their kids, "Look some people drive
    like maniacs, but I don't, and when you're old enough to drive, you
    shouldn't either." Responsible parents do say this to their kids, but
    these parents also expect that the larger society will establish and
    maintain speeding laws that reinforce the parents' responsible values.
    
    This analogy is *extremely* weak in that it ignores the *simplicity* of
    the issue of speeding and the *limitless complexity* of the issues
    raised in controversial music and art. 
    
    So, I'm definitely *not* using the analogy to say, "There, it's
    obvious we should have laws like the one in 181.0." I do want to use it
    to ask if there might be a legitimate role for some kind of social
    control (like maybe a rating system for records), instead of leaving
    the issue entirely up to the judgment of individual families.
    
    **A Slight Digression**
    
    You make a good point that society needs to do more to support
    families, Brian M., instead of attacking artists. Well, it's *sort* of
    a good point -- the second part's great, but the first part gives me
    trouble. I have a terrific mistrust of making the family central to the
    solution of our social ills. Too many people have too much experience
    of their families as a dangerous, destructive place where they got hurt,
    not helped, and most of the ideas that I've come across that are
    intended to help the family in some way seem to reinforce the
    near-monopoly of the family's influence on kids. Plenty of kids need to
    be rescued from their families, not put more firmly into their control. 
    
    This is why I wonder if there isn't room for some external, social
    benchmarks -- some way that society also shapes what kids are exposed
    to. Even with more "help" from the larger culture, lots of families are
    going to be horrible places. Kids need more than the messages they get
    from their parents.
    
    So, heck, I guess I'm just repeating myself. But, do you see what I'm
    questioning about helping the family?
    
    Anyway, my most basic instinct is to go for as few controls, laws,
    "benchmarks," etc., as possible. But I think they do have some place in
    our life together as a society, even if they're hard to establish and
    maintain. I don't think they lead inevitably to a Korea-like result.
    
    --Nancy

    re: .28 (Allison)
    
    I reject the analogy between Playboy and records and the basic reason
    why is because if the law in .0 was to regulate sales of Playboy
    to minors, it would NOT have the problems I described in .20.
    
    1) There is far less subjectivity involved in pictures than in words
    
       A picture of a naked woman is one thing, a description of one is
       another. 
    
    2) It is easy for the store owner to tell which of his periodicals
       must be withheld from children.  Your average 7-11 only sells about
       half a dozen different ones, and the "legality" doesn't vary from
       issue to issue.
    
       Your average record shop probably gets about 4 dozen new titles a week,
       to add to his several thousand in stock, and it's not like you can
       say "Prince's last album was suitable for minors so this new one
       must also be".
    
    I actually believe I have enough credentials to claim the label of
    "moderate" in this issue, but in my opinion THIS law is ill-concieved.

Article 1565 of clari.news.music:
Subject: Panama bans obscene reggae, rap songs
Date: 24 Mar 92 18:33:30 GMT

	PANAMA CITY, Panama (UPI) -- Upset at declining moral standards
Panamanian authorities have banned radio, TV and public discos from
playing a list of local reggae songs deemed to be obscene, it was
announced Tuesday.
	Live concerts, including those by rap artist Vanilla Ice, are also
included in the ban.
	``These types of songs corrupt the morals of our youngsters by
inciting sex and using obscene words,'' said Nelly Cebamanos, executive
secretary of the Justice Ministry's censorship board.
	The ban affects some of the most popular hits on the Panamanian
airwaves and include all songs by the artist Cocoman, as well as the
songs ``Pato'' (Duck) by the group Tony y Ruben and ``Si el hombre quire
pedazo'' (If the man wants a piece) by Rude Girl, Cebamanos said.
	Cebamanos also said she would suspend any future concerts by U.S.
rapper Vanilla Ice and the Dominican rap artist El Comandante if they
repeated obscene acts from their previous Panamanian concerts.
	Any radio and TV station that violates the ban will be suspended,
while discos open to those under 18 will loose their operating licenses
if they violate the ban, Cebamanos said.

    IMO, Vanilla Ice IS an "obscene act" - and it has nothing to do with
    music!  ;^)  (But then again, neither does he.)
    
    K.C.

    I'm glad so many of my fellow Americans are content with the way the
    New World Order is going... when the water temperature hits 212F you
    won't even notice, will you?  Must be nice.  Have another Bud.
    
    1) The "P" in PMRC is a lie.  It represents the abdication of parental
    responsibility to the Government.  PMRC, and this law, represent the
    continued enforcement of behavioral and moral standards by one group
    (or one person in this case) over the rest of us in clear violation of
    the Constitution.
    
    2) Instead of saying "what's right for printed matter must be right for
    audio recordings", why is no one saying "who says it's right for
    printed matter in the first place"?  Censorship is censorship.  Age
    restrictions once again only represent Government in loco parentis.
    [In loco parentis policies, you may recall (or may not), formed the
     psychological basis of the student radical movement of the Sixties.]
    
    3) We are becoming a society where people are willing to trade civil
    liberties for some sense of security, and where violence is
    commercialized and displayed promiscuously but where natural biological
    acts are trivialized and reduced to the status of crimes.  I am finally
    beginning to understand what the term "sick society" means.
    
    4) This law is racist.  This law is unconstitutional.  This law is
    immoral.  This law is wrong, and it was enacted for the wrong reasons.
    It is about power, not decency, and it is naive to believe otherwise.
    
    Your mileage may vary, but our prison cells will be the same size.
    \Gary

        I all have to say is that I think this law is racist and does much
    more harm to society than good.
    
                                                       Capt. Scott

"Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech."  First Amendment.

This law will never stand up in court, but it's outrageous that someone will 
have to get unjustly arrested, subjected to public notoriety for "corrupting
youth", not to mention spending thousands of bucks for lawyers and months or 
years of time to get the law knocked down.  The  governor of Washington is 
totally gutless.

PS -- I do sort of like the way the Boston Globe movie reviews handle the 
content of movies.  Along with listing the title, director, stars, etc., they
add a little box:  "Rough language.  Partial nudity.  Simulated sex."  Let
the PMRC or anyone else review albums like that and I'll never say a word, but
hands off the First Amendment.

>	The bill makes it a crime for record stores to sell minors any music
>that is found by the courts to be ``patently offensive'' and ``utterly
>without redeeming social value.''

Here are some questions this brings up....

How will they (the Washington courts) determine if an album fits the 'erotic' 
category?  Will they screen every album that is sold in the state before it can 
be sold?

I guess a better question for those of you who support such laws is this:  How 
would YOU administer such a law.  It's very easy to say you support it, or even 
support it's goals, but it's an entirely different question when it comes to 
actually carrying it out.

Should there be a 'list' of words and phrases that will be deemed 'erotic'?  
Remember, this CAN'T be a gray area... either an album qualifies or it doesn't. 
No middle ground.  Is every album that uses the 'f' word in any context 
automatically 'erotic'?  If not, who determines what the context is?

Also, it's the law in most states that anyone who sells alcohol must be at 
least 18 years old.  Is thing going to be similar?  (ie, any record store that 
carries any 'erotic' music must have persons over 18 years of age to check your 
ID and sell you the stuff)

>	Supporters said they were taking direct aim at controversial groups
>such as 2 Live Crew, N.W.A., and Too Short. The lyrics of these rappers
>are often laced with obscenities and many have protested some passages
>as demeaning to women.

I wasn't aware that David Duke had such power in Washington state.

>	The Everett, Wash., mother who single-handedly instigated the bill
>was overjoyed by the governor's action.
>	``I'm so happy,'' said Karen Leslie. ``The kids just hate my guts now
>(but) I want people to know that one person can make a difference. It
>means so much to me because it's no different between this and the dirty
>magazines.''

There IS a difference... a BIG difference.  Pictures ARE NOT open to 
interpretation.   Lyrics (poems... that IS what they are...) ARE open to 
interpretation.  Just about anything (lyric wise) can be twisted into 
something sexual.

And what is a dirty magazine as this person states?  Any magazine that shows a 
woman's breast?  Most fashion magazines, sports illustrated, and dozens of 
others would qualify... not just Playboy, Penthouse, and magazines of that 
genre.

>	Leslie fought for the legislation after her 4-year-old son learned
>what she said was ``foul language'' from listening to a tape of the rap
>group 2 Live Crew. The tape was purchased by a teenage nephew at a local
>record store.
>	Leslie called the music by 2 Live Crew and other rap groups ``audible
>pornography.''

Once again... she seems to think that rap groups are the only culprits.  This 
woman just screems "HEY!  I'M A RACIST AND PROUD OF IT!"

>	Earlier in the week, Gardner had indicated he might consider vetoing
>the measure on a ``First Amendment basis.'' But he also said his wife
>would have a ``strong influence'' on what he did.

The voters voted HIM into office, NOT his wife!

>	Jean Gardner counseled the governor to sign the bill. In the past,
>she has supported activist Tipper Gore, wife of Sen. Al Gore, D-Tenn.,
>whose Parents Music Resource Center of Arlington, Va., played an
>instrumental role in getting record companies to voluntarily label
>explicit albums.

I'm sure Tipper is tickled pink with this bill.  Although she has stated that 
voluntary labeling is the answer, I think we all know that she and her kind 
have much more on their agenda.  This bill proves it.

Later...
Steve

    
    i guess i reject Allison's (.28) argument.  Once again we are trying
    to placate this discomfort concerning right and wrong by abdicating
    responsibility to government.
    
    Speed laws don't work very well because we cannot (and would not)afford the
    enforcement cost.
    
    Murder is considered highly illegal and morally wrong.  It is an
    endeavor that thrives in this country, and i'm probablistically sure
    one has occured as i type this.
    
    Naked men or women in magazines can only be regarded obscene by judging
    the context - or, is this the old "original sin" stuff that we are
    basically born obscene creatures.
    
    We can pass the buck of responsibility as far as we like. Goodness, we
    see so many fine examples around us, be it business or government or
    public education or whatever, but the only reliable way to influence
    others, be they our young, peers or elders, is in our own individual
    behavior towards each other.   You get what you give, and if you shirk
    the giving than you deserve the getting.  The responsibility lies with
    each of us, period.
    
    	bob

> There IS a difference... a BIG difference.  Pictures ARE NOT open to 
> interpretation.   
    
    Oh? 
    
    Jesse Helms made the same argument about Robert Mapplethorpe.

    Dave,
    
    I happen to agree, sort of, with Jesse Helms on the matter of Robert
    Mapplethorpe. But let me make it clear what I *am* agreeing with -
    the government shouldn't be in the business of funding art with public
    money. I don't think the government has a right to censor art, but
    that doesn't mean they have to pay for it either. However, I think the
    *only* exception is work that is directly commisioned by the government
    for public use. In that case, I do think it is reasonable for the
    government to stipulate, to some degree, what they are willing to pay
    for.
    
    If they're *not* willing to pay for child nudity, men engaging in sodomy
    and men urinating on each other, that's their right. I wouldn't pay for
    it either.
    
    Again, they have *no* right to stop it, but they *do* have the right
    not to pay for it. And, as I said before, unless they're paying for art
    which is intended for public display (like in the Smithsonian), in my
    humble opinion, they have no right to use my money on it.
    
    We can argue about whether that should/shouldn't apply to PBS some
    other time... I haven't fully resolved my own opinion on that matter.
    
    Brian

    
    re .39
    
    Good point...
    
    I guess what I was trying say was this... take for example
    Mapplethorpe's picture of men peeing on eachother... what you think of
    the picture is besides the point.  Fact is that that picture IS a picture of
    men urinating.... no two ways about it.
    
    But try to describe such a picture in words... it could be blatant as
    I've typed above, or one could describe it in such a way that only a
    perceptive individual might understand.
    
    The worst possible inturpretation is on that comes from a person like
    Jesse Helms in which he/she tries to take perfectly irrelevant words and
    try to say that they do indeed describe the events listed above.  THIS
    is what we must watch out for the most...
    
    Later...
    Steve
    

    
    Chris,
    
    Are you still going to be listening to your daughters music when she
    turns 13 and starts listening to Heavy Metal (assuming that you don't
    like Heavy Metal)???? If you still plan on listening to her music, then
    I aplaud you, because you're 1 in 1000 that will. It's not that the
    parents don't want to be involved, it's that there usually is a
    generation gap, that the parents don't like what their kids are
    listening to. If you were 11 when the Vietnam War ended, and you have a
    8 year old you were pretty young when she was born, You probably won't
    have a problem keeping up with her music. However, I'm a Vietnam
    Veteran, and my wife and I haven't started a family yet, so I'm going
    to have a more difficult time. But don't think I won't be involved in
    her/his activities.
    
    
    
    
>>    1) There is far less subjectivity involved in pictures than in words
    
>>       A picture of a naked woman is one thing, a description of one is
>>       another. 

    A picture of a naked women is one thing, but a description of a 14 year
    old girl being raped is another.


>>How will they (the Washington courts) determine if an album fits the 'erotic' 
>>category?  Will they screen every album that is sold in the state before it can 
>>be sold?

    They do that with movies today. They'll just have to expand the process
    for records.

>>I guess a better question for those of you who support such laws is this:  How 
>>would YOU administer such a law.  It's very easy to say you support it, or even 
>>support it's goals, but it's an entirely different question when it comes to 
>>actually carrying it out.

    Each album should be labeled with the content of the label. Some albums
    should probably not be allowed to be sold to minors. This is being 
    practiced with movies, and with magazines. Nothing new here.

>>Should there be a 'list' of words and phrases that will be deemed 'erotic'?  
>>Remember, this CAN'T be a gray area... either an album qualifies or it doesn't. 
>>No middle ground.  Is every album that uses the 'f' word in any context 
>>automatically 'erotic'?  If not, who determines what the context is?

    Movies will get a PG-13 rating if it has too much profanity in it.
    There can be no nudity at all. A R rating can result if the subject
    matter is to mature of a young audience. If the act of a women being
    raped is just described explicity in a movie, then the movie can get
    a R rating. They don't have to show it, just explain it in detail.
    An example of this, is a court room scene. If the women on trial 
    describes in detail how she got raped, then the movie CAN be rated R.

>>Also, it's the law in most states that anyone who sells alcohol must be at 
>>least 18 years old.  Is thing going to be similar?  (ie, any record store that 
>>carries any 'erotic' music must have persons over 18 years of age to check your 
>>ID and sell you the stuff)

    Doubtfull....You don't have to be 18 to sell a Penthouse or Playboy.


>>There IS a difference... a BIG difference.  Pictures ARE NOT open to 
>>interpretation.   Lyrics (poems... that IS what they are...) ARE open to 
>>interpretation.  Just about anything (lyric wise) can be twisted into 
>>something sexual.

    I hope they don't base their rating on the interpretation of the lyrics.
    But on things like profanity or obsecenity. Some things are blantently
    obvious, some arn't. Ever hear the song "My girl Bill". I can just see
    this getting a R rating. Bt hopefully, there will be a process in place
    as with the movies, that the movie maker can petition to have the
    rating of the album changed.

>>"Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech."  First Amendment.

>>This law will never stand up in court, but it's outrageous that someone will 
>>have to get unjustly arrested, subjected to public notoriety for "corrupting
>>youth", not to mention spending thousands of bucks for lawyers and months or 
>>years of time to get the law knocked down.  The  governor of Washington is 
>>totally gutless.

    But the government isnt' censoring the music. They are however restricting
    the sale of the music to minors. The freedom of speech is not being
    violated
    
    Mike

    
    	movie ratings are not governed by any government laws. It's an
    industry run thing, and is known to vary in it's application of
    judgement.
    
    	i listened to my daughters heavy metal music in the car the
    other day. It was there, i gave it a try.  She's been busy at home
    trying how to play "Light My Fire" on her alto-sax, i picked up a
    books full of popular(current even) hits for sax.  And her older sister
    has decided she likes "Instant Karma" from the Nike adds, and what's
    wrong with me - why don't i have that CD!
    
    	Beware of generation gaps - it is nothing more than a case of
    different perspective.  You cannot, and should not expect a 13-25
    year old to think like a 40 year old.   A 40 year old, SHOULD be
    able to remember some of the perspective of being at that age. Alot
    of this behavior is wired into the species - when you are young and
    at your physical prime, it is to the species advantage to feel
    immortal.  Along with the risk comes the opportunity. It's more
    damaging to deny the opportunity in the name of minimizing the risk!
    Generation Gap is short-hand for those of us who've been pounded
    enough by experience! We have NO right to deny the same to our young.
    They'll not listen to our advice anyways.

    
>>    	movie ratings are not governed by any government laws. It's an
>>    industry run thing, and is known to vary in it's application of
>>    judgement.
    
    The ratings are not governed by any government laws, but the
    enforcement of it is. IE....Under 18 is not allowed in X rated movies.
    And the movie house can be shut down for letting them in.
    
    Mike

    My mother was 32 when I was born, and we had no problem agreeing with
    music (aside of her shock from SEEING Kiss).  She was 40 when my younger 
    brother was born, and she STILL listened to his music.
    
    Age shouldn't make too much of a difference - its the ATTITUDE and the
    tolerance that matters.
    
    My oldest sister is 13 years older than I, and I grew up listening to
    her music (as did my mom  ;^) ).  And this was in the late '60's, when
    all of that groovy, drug music was out...er, I mean in...er...oh, heck.
    
    I was also 8 years old when I discovered my brother's PLAYBOY magazines 
    (he was 16).
    
    With all of that "evil influence" (;^) ) I have NEVER experimented with
    drugs, NEVER committed a major crime (I DID, however, once steal a Pez
    pack...once).  I consider myself open minded, and basically a good
    person.  I don't even ever use the "F" word!
    
    So, as a result of all that, I believe that if a parent takes the time
    to TALK to their children, and REALLY communicate, all of the "outside
    evil influences" won't matter.
    
    As for rating the albums like movies, it has been said before (and
    better that _I_ can say it), but while there are dozens of movies to
    rate month-by-month, day-by-day, there are literally HUNDREDS of
    songs...never mind albums...that are released in the same time span! 
    Since IMO rating depends a lot on opinion (I've seen movies that I
    don't think deserved the ratings they got), WHO is going to make these
    decisions?  And what about the older songs?  Is John Denver's "Rocky
    Mountain High" going to get a PG-13 rating because someone is still
    insistant that it has to do with taking drugs (which I don't think it
    does)?
    
    Munch on that, if you will.
    
    OK...enough long-winded spouting from the short person!  ;^)
    
    K.C.

    (This is my single shot at becoming a participant instead of a
    spectator for this note...)
    
    I've just read through the entire note.  It's interesting that several
    people have invoked the example of lyrics describing the rape of a
    14-year-old girl to justify restricting children's music exposure.  I
    wonder what music that girl was allowed to listen to?...
    
    In other words, it's a big, sometimes nasty world out there.  Children,
    especially as they grow older, are at times going to be out of their
    parents' earshot and exposed to all kinds of things.  The best thing
    you can do is educate them about what they're hearing and what you
    think is right vs. wrong.  Children too young to hear about heavy
    nastiness are young enough to have their music monitored closely by a
    parent.
    
    I agree with the folks who want the government out of this business. 
    (And anyway, has such censorship ever been proven to have any benefit
    whatsoever?)
    
    	Eve

re .41
    
>>>How will they (the Washington courts) determine if an album fits the 'erotic' 
>>>category?  Will they screen every album that is sold in the state before it can 
>>>be sold?
>
>    They do that with movies today. They'll just have to expand the process
>    for records.

For every movie released each year, I'll bet there are at least a thousand 
albums.  Major labels, independent labels, etc... thousands and thousands.
It's already expensive for movies.... but the cost of reviewing, and appealing, 
etc, etc... would be far to expensive... 

>    Each album should be labeled with the content of the label. Some albums
>    should probably not be allowed to be sold to minors. This is being 
>    practiced with movies, and with magazines. Nothing new here.

Hold it... what's the content of an album?  A list of 'erotic' words and 
phrases?

Here's a good example of what might be misconstrued as sexual.  It's from 
U2's "Until the End of the World" on the Achtung Baby album....

"Surrounding me, going down on me
 Spilling over the brim"

Should this be banned?  Is it sexual?  Is this a description of oral sex?  It 
might seem so... (I don't think so in the context of the song) but who is to 
say?

>    Doubtful....You don't have to be 18 to sell a Penthouse or Playboy.

That's because there is no real law saying Playboy can't be sold to minors.  I 
was buying Playboy when I was 15.  The laws are so vague that there is not much 
distinguishing between a fashion magazine with a photo of a see through blouse 
and a hard core sex magazine.

>    But the government isn't' censoring the music. They are however restricting
>    the sale of the music to minors. The freedom of speech is not being
>    violated
 
Bull!  This law is worded in such a way as to strike fear into record sellers.  
If you owned a record store in Washington, would you be willing to 'risk' 
selling rap records for fear of arrest?  I'd think twice about selling anything 
but instrumentals.

The government IS censoring music.... FROM EVERYONE!  It's just they're doing 
it in such a clever way as to hide their true motives.

I'm scared that laws like this can actually be passed anywhere where the stars 
and stripes flies.

Later...
Steve

>>For every movie released each year, I'll bet there are at least a thousand 
>>albums.  Major labels, independent labels, etc... thousands and thousands.
>>It's already expensive for movies.... but the cost of reviewing, and appealing, 
>>etc, etc... would be far to expensive... 

    I wouldn't say that. There are litteraly thousands of movies released
    each year. Not all go to the big screen, some go directly to video
    stores, and others go directly to TV, HBO  etc....Also how long is a
    album....45 maybe 60 minutes. Movies are usually 1 1/2 hours and up.
    
>>Hold it... what's the content of an album?  A list of 'erotic' words and 
>>phrases?

>>Here's a good example of what might be misconstrued as sexual.  It's from 
>>U2's "Until the End of the World" on the Achtung Baby album....

>>"Surrounding me, going down on me
>> Spilling over the brim"

>>Should this be banned?  Is it sexual?  Is this a description of oral sex?  It 
>>might seem so... (I don't think so in the context of the song) but who is to 
>>say?

    I'll agree that content is very vague, and completely interperative.
    That's why I made the statement about the song "My Girl Bill". I can
    just see them putting a R rating on this because they THINK they're
    talking about gay-sex.
    
    
>>That's because there is no real law saying Playboy can't be sold to minors.  I 
>>was buying Playboy when I was 15.  The laws are so vague that there is not much 
>>distinguishing between a fashion magazine with a photo of a see through blouse 
>>and a hard core sex magazine.

    Obviously you don't know much about the law. There are several state
    and federal laws on this. Playboy is mild to the REAL HardCore books
    you can buy. Under 18 can't even go into these Adult book stores.
    Playboy and Penthouse can't be displayed below a 4' level in a general
    store. Also the front cover has to be hidden from view. And under 18 is
    not allowed to buy it.
    
>>Bull!  This law is worded in such a way as to strike fear into record sellers.  
>>If you owned a record store in Washington, would you be willing to 'risk' 
>>selling rap records for fear of arrest?  I'd think twice about selling anything 
>>but instrumentals.

    The law is for the sale of this music to minors. I wouldn't be afraid
    to sell ANY materail to ADULTS. I'll agree the law as it's written is
    wrong. But I feel something should be done. This law needs major
    guidlines which arn't being given. It's too vague. I also feel that the
    way the law is written, that the first time it's challanged in court
    the law will be proved unconstitutional.
    
    Mike

This law is very very scary and is a sign of a very sick society. Not a 
society that is worried about what their children see and hear but a society 
that is so hung up on a word or a phrase or a natural act (yes, believe it or 
not sex is natural and good and wholesome), that they will write laws in 
complete contrast to everything that their forefathers and foremothers gave 
their lives for.

Personally I would much rather take the responsibility of educating my 
children. Teaching them to look at both sides of an issue and make an informed 
decision than to have one more law passed taking away a person's rights. Yes 
children do have right (even teenagers). If this means that I have to tell my 
four year old what "For Unlawful Carnel Knowledge" means than so be it. Bad 
language is nothing new to children. I think I was 5 when I learned the word 
F*&K and numerous others. I didn't have to listen to music to hear it either. 
There were plenty of kids who were willing to teach.

Teach your children to use their heads not to dismiss something as "evil" or 
"the devil's work" without knowing all sides of the issue.

Geoff_just_rambling_on... 

    re .48
    
    Let me rephrase the bit about owning a record store...
    
    If I owned a record store in washington, I'd be afraid to sell ANY
    ALBUM to ANYONE under the age of 18.
    
    Here's a sick thought.... it's been suggested that Bert and Ernie (of
    Sesimee (sp?) Street) promote a gay lifestyle and that they should be
    banned.
    
    Where does it stop?
    
    Later...
    Steve
    
    

This thread seems, IMHO, to be degenerating into a flag-waving contest over who
has the greatest claim to being the staunchest "defender of American liberties."

Please note the following:

(1) Many people are still harping on the particular law which engendered this
discussion. I've seen noone attempt to defend this particular law, and I believe
the discussion at present revolves around the underlying *concept* of having
any sort of rating system *whatsoever* for recorded material and/or limitation
on selling material rated as "adult" to children under *some* age limit. Take it
for granted that any proposed system for implementing such regulation involves
some head-scratching, but separate justification of the concept from practical
considerations regarding its implementation.

(2) Limiting sales of material on the basis of age is an established method for
regulating access to items which society as a whole feels are not appropriate
for use/consumption by non-adults. It's acceptable in the case of liquor,
cigarettes, and print and video material of an adult nature. I've seen nary a
reply advocating the *banning* of *anything.* As observed previously, none of
the access-limiting regulations currently in place seem to work totally, but they
do in general have the desired effect. Please don't attack the concept of
regulation with the argument that it can't be totally effective- that's basically
a copout.

(3) Liberty is a two-edged sword. At one extreme, no one is allowed to do
anything which could possibly offend anyone; at the other, nothing is
prohibited, and the freedom of individuals to define a reasonable (defined by
societal consensus) social environment is null and void. Democratic societies
tend, IMHO, to ascribe to greater individual liberties in general, but do define
*some* standards of behavior, especially with respect to minors. If society
doesn't permit sales of adult audio material to minors, any parent who chooses
may still permit such access to their own children. If it *does* permit such
sales, parents who would not choose to introduce adult concepts to their children
at acgiven age have *lost* their right to choose. I don't believe it's correct
for anyone to *automatically* claim a greater love of liberty if one favors
unrestricted access; it's at best an arguable point. Slagging others as
closed-minded seems, ironically, to be an argument most often cited *by* closed
minds. Please make an honest effort to seriously consider any argument presented
before passing it off as not worth consideration because you don't immediately
grok it.

I'm very tired and a bit testy today. I hope this reply doesn't offend, but I'd
like to see this thread sort of refocus on the main issue at hand. I love
interesting discussions and find slagging contests somewhat tiresome. (I've also
just survived both Town and School District meetings...)

Bob

    RE: Mike Diamond
    
    Mike,
    
    Unlike a lot of other people,  I don't question your parental decision
    to shield your kids from certain things. 
    
    These kinds of laws punish people for not keeping your kids in line
    with your moral values.  While I think it's reasonable to ASK for help
    in reviewing this kind of material I don't think it's reasonable to
    expect it, and it's IMHO an terrible injustice to jail people for
    not doing it.
    
    You mention similar laws for Playboy.  I am against ALL such laws.
    
    I wouldn't want my kids buying Playboy.  But if they do, I can't even
    imagine wanting to jail the 7-11 clerk who did it.  If they bought that
    issue of Playboy, *I* have failed, not the clerk!
    
    It is not at all hard for me to respect your desire to keep this stuff
    out of your kids hand.
    
    I don't mean this to be insulting, but I do NOT respect you for being
    so willing to jail someone else for doing it.  As you've heard from
    other people, I think that's shifting the responisiblity from yourself.
    
    	db

>>How will they (the Washington courts) determine if an album fits the 'erotic' 
>>category?  Will they screen every album that is sold in the state before it 
>>can be sold?

>    They do that with movies today. They'll just have to expand the process
>    for records.

    Interesting idea that reminded me of a true story here in MA a few
    years ago.  There used to be an adult movie theater in a  shopping
    center north of Boston that got busted on almost a weekly basis for
    showing pornographic films (the line between what's legal and not in an
    X-rated movie is pretty fine).
    
    This is how it went:  A local group wanted the theater shut down but a
    judge ruled that each film had to be considered individually.  So every
    week, when a new film would start showing, a group member went to the
    theater, watched the movie, took notes (!!) and then went to the police
    and filed a complaint.  Then the cops had to send an officer to the
    theater, who watched the movie, took notes and then went back to the
    station and worked with the local DA to seek a court order to halt the
    film from being shown.  There would be the day in court, the order
    would be issued, but it would already be the last day of the film's run
    and the whole process would start all over again!
    
    For the theater, the fines were just a cost of doing business. Tax
    dollars at work.
    
    							Brian
    
    P.S. The ultimate idiotic law enforcement story I can think of is from
    the early 1970s when Macy's in NYC opened up on a Sunday in December to
    allow handicapped people to do Christmas shopping.  There was at the
    time a "blue law" prohibiting stores opening on Sundays, someone
    complained and the police made Macy's close their doors and eject the
    handicapped customers.  This is the sort of thing that can happen once
    a poorly-written law gets on the books.

    
    re .50
    
    Steve,
    
    I'd love to see the Music industry police themselves, but they refuse.
    And I don't want to see any legislation on censoring music, BUT there
    should be something to stop the sale of some of this material to young
    children. I know when I was growing up, my parents didn't want anything
    to do with my music. And I know many people out there who won't listen
    to their childrens. It's stupid to think the way to control this is for
    the parents to screen each and every album their kids buy. Sure it
    would work if you LIKED the music your kids bought, but if you didn't
    then this system will NEVER work. 
    
    Here's another proposal...Let the record stores sell ANY album with no
    restrictions. But the albums should still be labeled. Then let the
    parents decide as to what kind of album they want their children to
    listen to. I could tell my kids I don't want them to buy any R rated
    albums. I can visually screen this without having to listen to the
    music. 
    
    Mike

    
>>    I wouldn't want my kids buying Playboy.  But if they do, I can't even
>>    imagine wanting to jail the 7-11 clerk who did it.  If they bought that
>>    issue of Playboy, *I* have failed, not the clerk!
    
    Possible, But peer preasure can do a lot of damage to a parents
    diciline.
    
    
>>    I don't mean this to be insulting, but I do NOT respect you for being
>>    so willing to jail someone else for doing it.  As you've heard from
>>    other people, I think that's shifting the responisiblity from yourself.
    
    I never said I was willing to jail someone for selling the material to
    minors. It can be enforced the same was alcahol is sold. If the store
    gets caught selling to minors, thy can get fined or have the liscence
    revoked. If they have repeated offences, then they shut them down for
    good. No jail time, and believe me it'll work. These stores don't want
    to be shut down.
    
    Mikwe
    

    re .54
    
    Fine... I really don't have too much trouble with the record company
    slapping a label on the album... what I do have big trouble with is
    where this leads...
    
    What we are seeing in Washington is the next step.  First they wanted
    labeled albums, and the 2-live-crew album IS labeled.  They said they
    would be satisfied with that... now that is done and it's time to move
    onto the next step...
    
    You still haven't given me a solid answer as to how you would go about
    deciding which albums to ban (or label).  Words... phrases... ideas... 
    what?
    
    Later...
    Steve
    

    Reply:
    
    Mike, please don't say its "stupid" to expect parents to listen to
    their children's music. That sort of muddies the whole discussion into
    an "I'm not Stupid/Yes you are" sort of scenario.
    
    As to your point about listening, what harm will one listen do *any*
    parent. It's not about "liking" it, it's about knowing what's going on.
    The purpose is not to learn to like it, although some parents might end
    up doing that anyway!
    
    This argument tends to dive headfirst into the theorectical in every
    incarnation, so I think it's time for a bit of a reality check here.
    When the kids are blaring the stereo at home, *where are the parents*?
    In most households, it would seem to me that the parents can listen to
    their kids music with *no* extra effort. It's audible, so listen!
    If the kids aren't listening to music at home, why not? Is it because
    they fear a parent's moral judgement of it? If so, then it seems the
    message is really "do what you will as long as you don't get caught".
    I personally think the way to handle it is if you hear something that
    bothers you, sit down with the kids and talk about it, and above all,
    be willing to give a rest when the time comes...
    
    I can't control the fact that there are millions of incompetent parents
    out there. Unfortunately, the single most important thing anyone can do
    in their life is a completely unregulated/unlicensed activity. I don't
    mean this as an insult, but I'm pretty thankful I don't have some of
    you as a parent. I'm sure my kids will have plenty of complaints with
    my parenting when they're older. I know, however, that one of their
    complaints will not be that I thought it was someone else's responsibility
    to care.
    
    If people want some sort of guidance in selecting a recording, fine. I
    give. Problem is, that while people are asking for a perfectly
    reasonable thing, their view is being represented in government by
    racists, facists and zealots. If you really want to leave the problem
    in the hands of these people, then just keep arguing that this is
    "really good for us in the long run" and, above all, don't complain
    when you suffer the loss of yet another freedom in the name of
    "society".
    
    Brian

 Great topic !

 As a card carrying libertarian - this is a tough issue for me to wrestle with.
On the one hand, I feel we have too much government, and we should let people
control their own destinys, instead of having to say "mother may I" to the 
government. It seems every year we're giving up more and more of our freedoms.

 On the other hand, we're becoming a smaller and smaller world every day. To 
this extent, our actions have a greater effect on each other. To carry this
to it's ultimate extreme, an artist writing/singing a song in the 1700s may 
have had a few hundred people hear his work. Today, some unknown nobody(s), 
lets pick 2 live crew as an example, has access to the whole world. It's kind
of scary. Now if you just let the marketplace do it's thing, (here's where
the libertarianism kicks in) if 2 live crew has no talent, they will not
get world recognition, kids won't buy their records, etc. However, instead
we have the government stepping in and trying to regulate what they can sing.
This causes instant recognition for them, and the net result is that they
are 'world famous'  and potentially selling many more records, than if they
were just left alone. All of a sudden, kids learn a new way to protest.
( go to that concert or buy that banned record.) This is where the 
restriction starts to be counter productive. The best way to make something 
popular, is to tell people, (in this case kids) that they can't buy it. All of 
a sudden, it doesn't matter how good the record may be, the lure of forbidden 
fruit becomes attractive.

  As a parent though you can feel helpless. There isn't just the record sales
to worry about. MTV, radio stations, other kids, all may be playing music
that your child will hear, that you can not, and should not, be able to stop. I
think that it's out of this sense of helplessness that some people think some
sort of legislation should be put in place. Add to this the fear that your
kid is idolizing rock star "X" , and rock star "X" just came out with a song
about < insert objectionable theme here > and you can maybe see how some people
are willing to give up some more freedoms. Unfortunately, a small group of
vocal people can be very influential, and this could come to pass, slowly but
surely. 

Some problems with legislation that I can see....

What if I (parent) buy the forbidden record for my kid ? (is this illegal ?)

What if my kid copies his friend's record ?

Do I need to lock up any 'bad albums' out of reach from my kids and their
friends if they come over the house. If not, am I contributing to their 
delinquency ?

Can radio stations play these records ? if so, why can't the kids just copy 
them off of the radio ?

My point is, I understand WHY people want some type of legislation, but I can't
see where it will do any good. If the music is good, the kids will still get
it and listen to it. If the music is trash, nobody will play it or buy it, 
except out of protest. If someone has a song about rape, is it a bragging
song ? If so, will most people say "this guy is a jerk", and not even want
to listen to the song. Or is someone trying to make a social message ? are 
the kids even hearing the lyrics ? or do they just like the guitar work ? 


 Meanwhile, why are we dumping all the responsibilty on the record store owner? 

It is really short sighted to think that putting restrictions on record sales
is going to prevent our kids from listening to whatever music they want to. I 
don't think most people would put 'bad music' in the same category as 
toabbacco, alcohol, and drugs. And if some kid committs rape or robbery because
he heard about it in a song, we got bigger problems than his choice of music...


 Bob

    
>>    You still haven't given me a solid answer as to how you would go about
>>    deciding which albums to ban (or label).  Words... phrases... ideas... 
>>    what?
    
    It's being done today (as I pointed out earlier) with the movie
    industry. They rate moview on content..ideas, phrases and words. The
    only thing missing is the visual.
    
    
>>    Mike, please don't say its "stupid" to expect parents to listen to
>>    their children's music. That sort of muddies the whole discussion into
>>    an "I'm not Stupid/Yes you are" sort of scenario.
    
    The only reason I said it is stupid, is because it was said earlier
    that the parents SHOULD listen their kids music. Well maybe in some
    cases, but it IS STUPID for that to be EXPECTED in ALL cases. Just
    because one household does it, dosn't mean others do. What about deaf
    parents/parent who's raising a teenager. Please tell me how the parent
    is going to LISTEN to their childs music.
    
>>    As to your point about listening, what harm will one listen do *any*
>>    parent. It's not about "liking" it, it's about knowing what's going on.
>>    The purpose is not to learn to like it, although some parents might end
>>    up doing that anyway!
    
    No my point is that with the system the way it is now, LISTENING is the
    ONLY method a parent has. And in most cases this won't work. I'll bet
    that less then 20% of parents like their kids music, and have the time
    and patience to listen to it.
    
>>    When the kids are blaring the stereo at home, *where are the parents*?
    
    I wasn't allowed to blare the music in my parents homs. If I wanted to
    listen to my music, I had to do it in my room. They didn't want to hear
    it.
    
>>    I can't control the fact that there are millions of incompetent parents
>>    out there. 
    
    How do you jump to the conclusion that parents are incompetent because
    they don't listen to their kids music??? My parents must have been real
    incompetent, because they hated my music.
    
>>    in their life is a completely unregulated/unlicensed activity. I don't
>>    mean this as an insult, but I'm pretty thankful I don't have some of
>>    you as a parent. I'm sure my kids will have plenty of complaints with
>>    my parenting when they're older. 
    
    You are now doing EXACTLY what your complaining about. Just because your 
    lifestyle allows you to bring up your children in a certain way, you
    then feel that EVERYONE should bring their kids up the same way. And
    you feel that the parents are incompetent if they don't follow YOUR
    guideline to being a good parent.
    
    
>>    If people want some sort of guidance in selecting a recording, fine. I
>>    give. Problem is, that while people are asking for a perfectly
>>    reasonable thing, their view is being represented in government by
>>    racists, facists and zealots. If you really want to leave the problem
>>    in the hands of these people, then just keep arguing that this is
>>    "really good for us in the long run" and, above all, don't complain
>>    when you suffer the loss of yet another freedom in the name of
>>    "society".
    
    I think you're seeing something there I don't. I don't see any freedom
    being taken away. In fact I see some MORE freedom being given to me.
    
    Mike

    
    re: Bob A. - I've been out every night this week, and a couple of times
    a week since Jan working town/school finances.  My empathy on that
    score, and i'm not ready to engage in the debate which you kind of
    invited - "Do these government controls of access to minors actually
    work?".  I think there is some compelling evidence they do NOT, but
    that is for another day.  I'm too tired, and my next utterances will
    prove it:-)
    
    Mike D - i think you are merely foisting your morals on everyone else.
    It is a matter of perspective - adapt of more macro view of life on
    planet earth, and you can make an equally valid claim that the sole
    purpose any of us have on earth is to reproduce, with as wide a variant
    in the gene pool as possible.  Under that guize, that puts AIDS as
    a tremendous success in the living scheme of things!  A rational
    argument, supported by factual evidence can back that up! Uh, that
    would make all arguments restricting sexual(reproductive) activity
    a rather "mortal" sin, except incest which has a "natural" more than
    spiritual reason to be taboo!

    
>>    Mike D - i think you are merely foisting your morals on everyone else.
    
    Wait a minute here..... Please show me ONE phrase or ONE word where I'm
    trying to foister my morals on everyone else. I think you need a
    reading comprehension course.
    
>>    It is a matter of perspective - adapt of more macro view of life on
>>    planet earth, and you can make an equally valid claim that the sole
>>    purpose any of us have on earth is to reproduce, with as wide a variant
>>   in the gene pool as possible.  Under that guize, that puts AIDS as
>>    a tremendous success in the living scheme of things!  A rational
>>    argument, supported by factual evidence can back that up! Uh, that
>>    would make all arguments restricting sexual(reproductive) activity
>>    a rather "mortal" sin, except incest which has a "natural" more than
>>    spiritual reason to be taboo!
    
    Boy are you off on a tangent...
    
    

    RE: rating music
    
    Music can not be rated the same way as movies.  In a movie, if you see
    a couple making love, there is very little doubt as to what they are
    doing.  However, in music, there are about a dozen different ways of
    saying (maybe) "making love" - how about "The Horizontal Bop"?  Or DOES
    that mean sex?  Maybe it IS a new dance step - stand bent over, so that
    your upper body is parallel to the floor, and dance away!
    
    All that is just an example.  There are hundreds, nay, THOUSANDS more. 
    Think of "Rocky Mountain High".  "Wake Up, Little Suzie".  "Rattlesnake
    Shake".  "Velcro Fly".  Did "Oh my darling, Clemintine" actually SLIP,
    or was it a suicide attempt?  
    
    You think I'm being silly...well, sometimes silly makes a point. 
    Simple words without visual connection is always open to
    interpretation.
    
    I think that, like it or not, parents have a RESPONSIBILITY to know
    what their children are listening to it.  Its not the government's job,
    or the record store's job, or the DJ's job or the producers...it is the
    PARENTS.
    
    No more name calling, please...we're supposed to be adults here.  OK?
    
    :^)
    
    K.C.

    Mike,
    
    Well it seems you're happy with the status quo. You're even willing to
    conjecture that the people who are pursuing the cause of "record
    labeling", et al, are interested in *increasing* your freedom.
    
    My comments about "incompetent parents" is a direct response to the
    people who are advocating this law. The argument is always that parents
    can't/won't/don't know what their kids are doing unless someone gives
    them a "helping hand". Sounds bloody incompetent to me.
    
    I'm here to categorically reject that "help", thank you. Whether anyone
    else rejects it is of absolutely no consequence to me. If you really
    feel better getting this sort of support from big brother, knock
    yourself out.
    
    Some of you will insist on anquishing over whether Junior hears high
    octane descriptions of reprodcutive processes; with various moral high
    grounds to preach from. The reality is you don't care what effect
    this has on anybody else, as long as it doesn't invade your own moral
    enclave where you can look as righteous as you want to. It doesn't
    matter if *those other people* are motivated by racism, or power, or
    even ingorance, you're protecting your own.
    
    I get a chuckle out of the argument that because "my parents did this
    and that, etc." that somehow, whatever their parents did was the norm.
    My parents weren't bad, but I gotta say, I hope they're not the norm!
    
    Anyway, I feel a bit blustered out on this too. I'll just say that
    I wouldn't even *think* of voting for any politician who felt it was
    their business to poke their nose into what people listen to.
    
    To quote the Joker: "This town needs an enama!!!!"
    
    Brian

    
>>    Music can not be rated the same way as movies.  In a movie, if you see
>>    a couple making love, there is very little doubt as to what they are
>>    doing.  However, in music, there are about a dozen different ways of
>>    saying (maybe) "making love" - how about "The Horizontal Bop"?  Or DOES
>>    that mean sex?  Maybe it IS a new dance step - stand bent over, so that
>>    your upper body is parallel to the floor, and dance away!
    
    But these things are considered when rating a movie. As I stated
    before, a movie dosn't have to show any nudity to be rated R. There
    have been many movies with no nudity and no violence but with a R
    rating. They got the rating because of the explicit language and
    content. There are other movies that cover the same subject, but arn't
    rated R, but in fact rated PG or G. If you say I want to F*ck you it
    automatically gets a PG rating. If you way I want do the Horizontal
    Bop, then it won't get the PG rating. And I'll be the first to admit it
    that their ratings arn't fool proof.
    
    As far as records go, I can't see too many records getting a R rating.
    Most will be either a PG or G. And as far as MY g morals on the
    subject....If my kid is old enough to go to the Mall on their own and
    buy their own records, then I've pretty much done my job as a parent in
    their moral upbring. At this age they should be able to listen to what
    they want without my permission.
    
    Mike

    
    
     what's the goal here ?
    
     how does labeling change anything ?  Record sales are only a tiny slice
    of the pie. If the goal is to prevent 'junior' from hearing certain
    words, phrases, ideas, then preventing him from buying the record does not
    stop him. It probably won't even slow him down. He can still listen to
    the airwaves, and borrow/copy friend's music.... no ?
    
    I have to agree about subjectivity in labeling. One person's curse is
    another's normal word/phrase. There are tons on songs which people
    claim have 'hidden' or secondary meanings. There is no way on earth
    you could tell for sure what the meaning is. In a movie, you either
    see something or you don't. In music much of it's left up to interpertation.
    
      And then somebody will start saying, "well, if this CD is rated X,
    then this story by shakespeare is also an X, therefore it's banned from 
    school." I just gotta believe that we have bigger problems than what
    CD junior is playing in his discman.... 

re: .54 Mike Diamond
    
>    Here's another proposal...Let the record stores sell ANY album with no
>    restrictions. But the albums should still be labeled. Then let the
>    parents decide as to what kind of album they want their children to
>    listen to. I could tell my kids I don't want them to buy any R rated
>    albums. I can visually screen this without having to listen to the
>    music. 
    
    That's a better proposal.  But I have one that I think accomodates
    your concerns as a parent without raising any first amendment
    questions.
    
    I don't see why ratings have to be on the albums.
    
    Here's what I wrote in .20:
    
>    Records do NOT need to have labels on them.  I think the "Parents
>    Music Resource Center" should become just that: a "resource center".
>    
>    THEY should do the ratings and they should do things like provide a
>    hotline to inquire about specific albums, publish a listing of ratings,
>    etc.   The ratings do NOT need to be on the albums, and thus they
>    don't even need buy-in from the music industry!
>    
>    Leaving the ratings up to the record companies and artists (as is
>    currently done) seems like leaving the fox in charge of the hens.
    
    The idea is that the PMRC determines and distributes the listings (via
    printed medium to record stores, or perhaps via a telephone hotline,
    etc.).
    
    If this issue is so important to folks like you, it hardly seems
    unreasonable to expect parents to make a phone call to find out
    if the album meets your standards?
    
    What say?

    
>>    My comments about "incompetent parents" is a direct response to the
>>    people who are advocating this law. The argument is always that parents
>>    can't/won't/don't know what their kids are doing unless someone gives
>>    them a "helping hand". Sounds bloody incompetent to me.
    
    In a society as complex as the one we live in now, it's very difficult
    for a parent to know everything their child is doing. Some parents have
    a easier job then others. Some don't. I don't find it too unreasonable
    for parents to ask their Government to help them out. If you feel that
    you have enough control over your kids, and KNOW FOR A FACT, what they
    are doing, then you probably won't want the governments help. But don't
    be so presumptous to assume that EVERYONE is in the same situation. I
    sure as hell don't. The question is....Which one of us falls into the
    majority??? Personally I think I do. 
    
>>    I get a chuckle out of the argument that because "my parents did this
>>    and that, etc." that somehow, whatever their parents did was the norm.
    
    I never made the statement that what my parents did was the norm. The
    meaning I was portraying from "My parents did this" argument, is that
    my parents brought me up in a certain way which is probably different
    from you, and I turned out alright. There are different approaches to
    how to bring up a child, and many seem to work.
    
>>    I wouldn't even *think* of voting for any politician who felt it was
>>    their business to poke their nose into what people listen to.
    
    Good, And that's your right to.    
    
    Mike

    
    re .66
    
    That sounds reasonable to me. But I'd pick labeling over it. In my case
    and in yours, I'd say that it would work. But there are many illiterate
    parents out there. They can identify symbols like PG-13 , but would
    have a hard time reading the album label. Your system wouldn't work for
    them.
    
    Mike

    Well Mike (.42), when my kid gets into her teens I hope I've shown her
    whats right and whats wrong (or not so right) so I'm starting now when
    I can make the biggest inpact. Maybe I won't be so worried if she hears
    songs about violence sex or drugs, and I hope she will be able to say
    to herself "I don't want to hear that so I'll turn it off for myself"
    but if she finds it intresting I hope she can see through the hype.
    That to me is a sign that she is wiser then others telling her she 
    can't listen to the music because someone else feels its to strong for
    her to hear.
    
    	Yeah, I'll listen to her music when she changes her taste, if she
    does (and I hope she does, because there is alot of music to hear).
    I've taken her to see many concerts (Bon Jovi,Clapton,Grateful Dead,New
    Kids) she even wrote a review of the Dead show she went to and it was
    printed in Deadbase '90 (a yearly book of reviews and set lists of Dead
    shows). Maybe I am that 1 in a 1000. I can live with that ! BTW I'll be
    turning 31 this summer she turned 8 in January.
    
    Chris

Lemme try to illustrate:

I'm walking through the "Mall of Unlimited Liberty" with my wife and son. Like
most malls these days, it has no limits on what it sells, nor the clientele
to whom goods are sold. On the way to CVS we pass buy the record/CD store (you
know, the one next to the porn shop), which is blasting out the latest pop record
"Me and the Boys Raped Your Sister, Ha Ha." My little one asks me all about rape,
why if it's wrong everyone seems to think it's fun and sings songs about it. I
explain as thoroughly as I can, given that he's four, and he says "uh-huh" in all
the right spots, but it's obvious that the words have no meaning to him. However,
he can *tell* that the guys singing on the record are having a swell time; he is
learning, no matter what I say. The concept that "rape is fun" becomes a
legitimate possibility in his mind.

Of course, we could go to another mall, but they have all the same shops. Well,
I could make sure my son doesn't go to the mall. Well, I guess I have to live
with what's forced upon me. Cost of "liberty," doncha know.

We do not live in a vacuum. There *is* a difference between the public
environment and the environment subject to our private choices. There is a valid
dividing line between those two environments, and a valid role of a free society
in defining that line. This is a difficult question, not the easy one which all
seem willing to address (i.e., the lack of a need to regulate private choices).

If you think the above should be considered an acceptable scenario, then we
differ on the definition of liberty, I guess.

Bob

    >What about deaf parents/parent who's raising a teenager. Please tell me 
    >how the parent is going to LISTEN to their childs music.
    
    This HAS to be the #1 award-winning reply of this note!!!
    
    -Stevie D

    And I can answer...
    
    Most likely, they would have a hearing friend or relative who can help
    out.
    
    K.C.

    
    Hey, if kids want to listen to heavy metal and kill themselves, it's
    fine by me. Population control for idiots.

    they can read I hope....

    
>>    Most likely, they would have a hearing friend or relative who can help
>>    out.
    
    Gee.... So this hearing friend is going to listen to the music, and
    tell the parent that the music contains bad language or is explicitly
    talking about Sex. Hmmm....Lets go one step further, and have this
    person put a label on the album for the parent so she'll know it's not
    good for her kid to listen to.

    
    What if the hearing abled friend kills themselves because of the
    music's evil influences before they can tell anyone? ~/~

    maybe I should fill in the blanks on my last quick note, (.74)
    
    READ, as in the words to the songs that come with the music, I have not
    seen a tape my kid has bought that didn't have the words (other wise I
    would not be to sure of what I just heard, getting old ya know :')
    
    Chris

    
    RE .76
    
    I love it. Great line.....

    
    Chris,
    
    Between my albums and CD's I only have 2 album that have the words to
    the songs in them. This is a collection of over 100 albums and CD's.
    
    Mike

    
     If this labeling stuff went through... what would it cost us in extra
    tax dollars... Good God , doesn't the government screw enough things
    up without giving them more ? 
    
    I think an earlier note hit it right on the head. If enough people are
    interested in what their kids are listening too, but can't/ won't
    listen to find out for themselves. They Can get together themselves
    through a parents committee, put out their own newsletters, warnings,
    and forbid these songs in their jurisdiction. They have every right,
    to do this. But please, lets not waste a few more million $ on
    something that we can do ourselves.. and please don't tell me what is
    obscene and what isn't...
    Bob
    

    	Well most of my LPs from years past might have words but I think
    now record companies have been putting the words in with new releases.
    I think it was a gimme to please Tipper and Friends.....I could be
    wrong, but shes got @40 tapes (sounds like alot of tapes huh) and the
    ones she have got in the last year or so have had words with them...
    (a lot of her tapes are homemade ones of LPs I have, like Beatles some
    Grateful Dead LPs and Boots, Clapton LPs and Boots) doesn't sound like
    an 8yr olds tape collection huh !
    
    Chris 

    re: Diamond
    
    > But there are many illiterate parents out there. They can identify
    > symbols like PG-13 , but would have a hard time reading the album
    > label. Your system wouldn't work for them.
    
    Do you truly consider this a significant flaw?
    
    First:
    
    They should be able to call the PMRC and get the information they need.
    
    For example, they don't need to be able to "read" per se to read off
    the LBC number.  And if worse comes to worse of course, they can 
    always LISTEN to the album.  
    
    Second:
    
    Illiterate people are disadvantaged in far more serious ways than being
    able to read warning labels. 
    
    Is the inability to read an album label to a PMRC rep more compelling
    a problem than the inability to read the label of the medicine you
    give your kids? 
    
    
    
    

    > Of course, we could go to another mall, but they have all the same
    > shops. Well, I could make sure my son doesn't go to the mall. Well, I
    > guess I have to live with what's forced upon me. Cost of "liberty,"
    > doncha know.
    
    > If you think the above should be considered an acceptable scenario,
    
    I do.
    
    > then we differ on the definition of liberty, I guess.
    
    We must.
    
    I don't think "liberty" guarantees you the right to a mall that meets
    your own moral standards.
    
    If there is no "porn-free" mall, it means no one wants to provide one,
    or maybe there's no demand for one.   There is no moral justification
    IMO for strongarming malls into providing an Ashford-compatable
    environment via law.

>    I don't think "liberty" guarantees you the right to a mall that meets
>    your own moral standards.
>    
>    If there is no "porn-free" mall, it means no one wants to provide one,
>    or maybe there's no demand for one.   There is no moral justification
>    IMO for strongarming malls into providing an Ashford-compatable
>    environment via law.

I'm beginning to see that if one feels a need to disagree with a position, it's
common practice to redefine that position so that there's grounds to disagree
with it. Responding to what I *didn't* say doesn't accomplish much.

I didn't imply in any way that I as an individual have any right to dictate
anything whatsoever. I'm attempting to point out that all decisions- including
the decision *not* to act- are in fact decisions nonetheless. In other words,
it's possible to abdicate one's responsibility as a member of society, not just
as a parent.

I disagree concerning the reasons for the hypothetical lack of a "porn-free
mall." My experience is that commercial enterprises will basically do whatever
reaps them the most profit, regardless of its impact on society. As to whether
anyone "wishes to provide" a "porn-free" mall, I believe that's the point which
is under discussion- whether making such entities the exception or the rule is
more in keeping with the preservation of individual liberties.

I also never stated that I advocate "strongarming" anyone, nor that my
*personal* desires carry any more weight than those of my neighbor. Please read
what you're rebutting before entering a response! (Oh, and please spell my name
correctly while you're at it.)

What liberty *does* guarantee me is the right to make laws, in conjunction with
my fellow citizens, which I feel are in the common interest. Such laws should
restrict freedom as little as possible, while providing equal protection to all
under the law.

If a law prohibits sales or exposure of certain materials to individuals under
a certain age, I submit that such a law is *less* restrictive than its *absence*
would be, since the freedom of *all* parents to make their own individual
judgements is not thereby restricted in any way. The *lack* of any such law
forces upon *all* parents a situation in which their children may be exposed to
any and all material/information which *any* person or person sees fit to
distribute/play/exhibit. The desired effect is to allow concerned parents to
*retain* their rights to educate their own children in the way they think best,
rather than being "strongarmed" into what others feel is acceptable. As I've said
before, this is a complex issue. I believe wrangling with it honestly is far more
productive than starting with a conclusion and putting patently offensive words
into the mouths of any who disagree.

Please note that this hypothetical law does nothing to restrain freedom of
artistic expression. Please note also that although no "cutoff" age has been
mentioned, those advocating the "no-holds-barred" approach seem intent on
focusing on older children, mostly teenagers. I think a more appropriate focus
would be on children in the range of, say, twelve and under. What's at issue here
is the appropriateness of introducing adult material to minds which cannot by
definition fully comprehend the concepts involved.

Bob

    
    RE Blickstein,
    
    Of course I understand that illiterate parents have many more problems
    then reading record labels. I was only trying to point out the FLAWS in
    the system you're proposing. No system is perfect, so don't be
    surprised when someone points it out to you.
    
    Mike

    re: .85
    
    > Of course I understand that illiterate parents have many more problems
    > then reading record labels. I was only trying to point out the FLAWS in
    > the system you're proposing. No system is perfect, so don't be
    > surprised when someone points it out to you.
    
    I think that it was reasonable for me to presume that by pointing
    it out, you regarded it as a significant flaw worthy of
    prompting reconsideration.
    
    I have not pointed out insignificant flaws in pro-labelling proposals.
    This note is voluminous enough as it is.  ;-)
    
    In any case, I have also tried to demonstrate that the flaw does not
    even exist.  My original proposal still provides a way for them to
    get the information they need.

    
>>    In any case, I have also tried to demonstrate that the flaw does not
>>    even exist.  My original proposal still provides a way for them to
>>    get the information they need.
    
    I'll admit that you have a solution. But, I don't think it's a workable
    solution. You know and I know that parents are going to want to easiest
    solution for them. When a task becomes burdonsom or unworkable, they'll
    start looking for a easier solution. People are going to want (No
    DEMAND), a easy solution. Most working parents are already having a
    tough time finding more spare time for their children. I can't see
    MANY parent embracing this solution when there are others which are
    EASIER for them manage.
    
    Mike

Mike,
    
You keep running back and comparing music to movies.  I submit right here and 
right now that your comparison is completely invalid.  Here is why:

Movies are NOT easily copyable.  Music is.
 
I buy a CD or tape, I can copy it for a dozen friends.  If I'm in jr. high, 
then almost every single one of my friends carries around a personal listening 
device known as a walkman.  Many of my friends have dual cassette decks... 
copying tapes is NOT a problem... either logistically or financially.

Going to the movies, and even renting video tapes, is a completely different 
thing.  Copying video tapes on the family VCR isn't quite so convenient, and 
most kids don't have their own dual VCR's to do the copying.

I remember when I was in Junior High, Eddie Murphy was the thing.  He had out 
a couple of albums that were pretty raunchy.  Friends talked and I wanted to 
listen to them. (I had heard bits of the tapes at school)  So I went through 
the normal channels... I asked Mom.  Mom and I went to the record store to 
check out the Eddie Murphy tapes.  She read some of the titles of the sections. 
(not songs really, it was a comedy tape)  "hmmm, I'm not so sure... let's ask
the clerk" she said.  So she asked the clerk... and he said "Some of it's 
dirty, but it should be OK..."  Well, of course Mom had the final say, and she 
said "no".  The next day, I brought in a blank tape, gave it to a friend, and 
he copied the tape for me.... that was it.  That was about 9 years ago... I'm 
sure copying tapes is even easier now.

I'm sure the recent 2-live-crew thing was no different.  The fact that the 
media and the holier-than-thou crowd made such a big deal out of it, that the 
album was in amazing demand.  As far a rap goes, the album stunk, and probably 
would have died a quiet death had no one made a big stink.

Anyway, I just can't see how albums would be rated the same way as movies are.
Giving an album an 'R' or an 'NC-17' rating would instantly mean it would be 
copied among thousands and thousands of kids who wouldn't ordinarily have 
listened to it.

I like Dave's idea of having the PMRC as a resource center, not a banning 
organization.  But I still don't know who will pay for it, or who will decide 
what's 'obscene' and what isn't.  Pictures are words are not the same.

The Government has already threatened convenience store chains into 
discontinuing the sale of adult magazines.  All they had to do what hang the 
threat of "You know... if you keep selling that, we might have to shut you 
down for distribution of pornography" over the stores heads, and the stores 
backed down.  They are doing it again in Washington, only this time the target 
is music.

Where does it end?

Later...
Steve

Article: 837
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (GREG HENDERSON)
Subject: Court lets stand ruling against Penthouse magazine
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 9:57:53 PST
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday let stand a ruling that
threw out a suit by Penthouse magazine against former Attorney General
Edwin Meese's pornography commission for allegedly coercing 7-Eleven and
major drug stores into halting their sale of adult magazines.
	The court, without comment, refused to disturb a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Meese and
others are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.
	The publishers of Penthouse, in a suit initially joined by Playboy
magazine, claimed the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
violated their First Amendment rights in 1986 when it sent a letter to
the owners of 7-Eleven and 22 other distributors indicating they could
be publicly sanctioned for selling ``pornography.''
	While Penthouse and Playboy feature naked women, neither has ever
been found to be legally pornographic or obscene. Such material has been
granted full First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court.
	Nevertheless, the letter convinced or helped convince Southland Corp.
(owners of 7-Eleven, the single largest retail sales outlet for
Penthouse), Rite Aid Drug Stores, Revco, Thrifty Drug, Dart Drug and
other operations to discontinue selling Penthouse and Playboy.
	Some 95 percent of Penthouse magazines are sold over-the-counter, and
the cessation of sales was ``disastrous,'' Penthouse wrote.
	``The invidious irony of this case is that petitioner was condemned
and punished by means of informal censorship, yet the commission's final
report never once described Penthouse magazine as pornographic or
obscene, never linked it to child abuse and never suggested that it is
an unlawful or illegal publication,'' the magazine wrote.
	The Meese Commission was established in 1985 to study pornography,
its impact on society and ways to contain its dissemination, and was
disbanded after issuing a final report in July 1986.
	Penthouse claims Meese and others violated its First Amendment rights
by a telephone call to Southland's vice president telling him that the
magazines sold at 7-Eleven would be linked to child abuse in the
commission's final report.
	No such linkage was ever made by the commission, but Southland was
involved in a strong anti-child abuse campaign at the time.
	And on Feb. 11, 1986, the commission mailed a letter to Southland and
22 other leading distributors of the magazines, on Justice Department
paper, that said it received testimony ``alleging that your company is
involved in the sale or distribution of pornography.''
	``The commission has determined that it would be appropriate to allow
your company an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to
drafting its final report section on identified distributors,'' the
letter continued.
	A statement titled ``Pornography in the Family Marketplace,'' which
had been delivered by Rev. Donald Wildmon, head of the National
Federation of Decency, was attached, but gave no indication of its
author.
	It read in part that ``well-known household names'' are ``major
players in the game of pornography. ... Few people realize that 7-Eleven
convenience stores are the leading retailers of porn magazines in
America.''
	``Because the letter was on Department of Justice stationery
containing the official seal of the United States of America, this
communication was reasonably viewed as a threat of prosecution by the
nation's highest law enforcement authority,'' Penthouse argues.
	Penthouse notes that Southland and other retailers that quickly
halted the sale of sexually oriented magazines after receiving the
letter ``were careful to immediately inform the commission of their
'corrective' action.''
	In July 1986, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., granted a
preliminary injunction for Playboy and Penthouse, ordering the
commission to write a follow-up letter informing the stores that their
names would not be included in the final report.
	But four years later the court dismissed the lawsuit.
	The appeals court affirmed, saying Meese and others had qualified
immunity from facing suit because their actions were ``criticism'' which
did not threaten any First Amendment rights.
	A number of groups including the Periodical Distributors Associations
and the Freedom to Read Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief
asking that the case be heard.
	Saying groups ``regularly face similar governmental misconduct and
often are compelled to seek redress from the courts,'' the brief warns
the decision means ``government officials may with impunity impose upon
the public their views as to 'appropriate' First Amendment material --
provided they couch their threats in calculating and discreet verbiage.''
 ------
_9_1_-_1_0_4_0_ _P_e_n_t_h_o_u_s_e_ _I_n_t_e_r_n_a_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _L_t_d_._ _v_s_._ _E_d_w_i_n_ _M_e_e_s_e_ _I_I_I_,_ _e_t_ _a_l_.

> Responding to what I *didn't* say doesn't accomplish much.

>I didn't imply in any way that I as an individual have any right to dictate
>anything whatsoever. 
    
    Bob,
    
    I agree you did not directly "say" any of those things.  I feel that
    your position implies them.
    
    If a candidate promises "free health care" is it wrong for me to
    challenge him on the basis of raising taxes, deficit,
    cutting-other-programs  because he only said "free health care" and not
    "I will raise taxes, cut programs, or raise the deficit"?
    
    You said that if the scenario of not having any malls without elements
    you want to shield your kids from is an "acceptable scenario" then
    we differ on the definition of liberty.
    
    Why is it thus unreasonable to presume that your definition of liberty
    gives you (as I said) a right to a mall that meets your moral
    standards?
    
>I disagree concerning the reasons for the hypothetical lack of a "porn-free
>mall." My experience is that commercial enterprises will basically do whatever
>reaps them the most profit, 
    
    What "reaps" the most profit?  Is it not, providing a mall that people
    will patronize?
    
>What liberty *does* guarantee me is the right to make laws, in conjunction with
>my fellow citizens, which I feel are in the common interest. 
    
    I claim that if no one is building malls suitable to your standards,
    it's because your standards are not the same as your fellow citizens.
    
>If a law prohibits sales or exposure of certain materials to individuals under
>a certain age, I submit that such a law is *less* restrictive than its *absence*
>would be, since the freedom of *all* parents to make their own individual
>judgements is not thereby restricted in any way. 
    
    I disagree completely.
    
    I don't think my selling racy rock records "restricts" your ability
    to make your own individual judgement.  
    
    What it restricts is the ability to allow your children to go to
    places where this stuff is accessible.
    
    	db

    
    RE Steve,
    
    You made a couple of GOOD points I hadn't thought of. Kids are going to
    what they want, when they want, and there isn't much ANY parent can do
    about it. I suppose that if you put labels on them, then they might
    draw more attention to them. I don't think they should be banned, and I
    don't believe the parents calling up on every album their kid listens
    to is a working solution. In all of the solutions mentioned, there are
    flaws. So we either pick the solution that is going to work the best
    for the majority, or don't do anything at all and let things go the way
    they are. Unfortunitly, if we let it go and things get worse, the
    Government is going to step in (on a federal level) and force a
    solution down our throats. And the one solution that comes to mind is
    the total banning. With the current government we have now, I can very
    easily see this happening.
    
    Mike

    re: .87 (Diamond)
    
>    I'll admit that you have a solution. But, I don't think it's a workable
>    solution. You know and I know that parents are going to want to easiest
>    solution for them. When a task becomes burdonsom or unworkable, they'll
>    start looking for a easier solution. 
    
    That the solution isn't the "easiest" does not mean that it is not
    "workable".
    
    >People are going to want (No DEMAND), a easy solution. Most working
    >parents are already having a tough time finding more spare time for
    >their children. I can't see MANY parent embracing this solution when
    >there are others which are EASIER for them manage.
    
    It's hard for me to have much respect for an plea that this is
    so important to our "most precious resource", but not important enough
    for a two  minute phone call.
    
    Does that seem so unreasonable?
    
    	db

Re .90(db):

>    Why is it thus unreasonable to presume that your definition of liberty
>    gives you (as I said) a right to a mall that meets your moral
>    standards?						^^^^

Because my entire argument is and has been that a *society* has a right to
regulate itself through the *joint* actions of its members. The inference that
these were *my* moral standards was in error. My scenario was meant to portray a
future in which individuals, denied this right, live in the "freedom of their
chains," in an environment utterly dictated by the preservation of extreme
individual liberties at the cost of their right to influence their own social
environment.
    
>    I don't think my selling racy rock records "restricts" your ability
>    to make your own individual judgement.  

I disagree. If such records become a ubiquitous part of our sonic environment,
it restricts this ability utterly. Sounds are not like visual stimuli, one
cannot simply "turn away." There is even more of an analogy here to the
restriction of smoking than there is to the limitation of visually offensive
material, IMHO. With no restriction, it can be virtually omnipresent in our
society.
    
>    What it restricts is the ability to allow your children to go to
>    places where this stuff is accessible.

PRECISELY! If said access is limited on the basis of age), my freedom is
retained, and noone else's is decreased. If there is no limit to access, my
freedom is decreased. Period. By your line of reasoning, smoking in public places
should not be limited, and anyone who doesn't care to breathes the smoke should
simply avoid public places. This is the crux of the entire issue, that there
are two sets of "freedoms" here, individual and social, and it is simply not
valid to argue that one set does not count.
    
At least the "smoke" is clearing enough to clearly identify aspects of this issue
on which noters could potentially "agree to disagree." I think. Maybe, anyway...

Bob

    
    	if there is a sufficient (majority) contituent which desires
    child-safe malls, then enterprising business's will provide that
    environment. The Disney parks are living proof that there is quite
    a considerable fortune to be made in appealing to such a clientele.
    
    	I watched a week or 2 ago, on the Discovery Channel (i think) this
    documentary on the political rise of Nazi Germany. (I can hear you all
    moaning i'm going too far!) Very slick operation indeed.  Easily sway
    almost the entire population that the violent discrimination of a
    few minorities were disturbing, but acceptable in respect to the
    greater good that was being accomplished.   
    
    	We look at the short story of Nazi Germany amazed in horror that
    anyone could fall for what happened.  Look at the long story, witness
    the worlds (still) most effective deployment of the mass media in terms
    of manipulation!  They were absolute masters of putting the happy smile
    forward, as they slit so many throats.    It CAN happen here!  This
    was not Cambodia where a regime of pure fear took over, this was one
    that emphasized a positive model, with just the right touch of fear to
    win the support of a people!  A bright, energetic, intelligent people!
    
    	I'm sorry, there is no only one right way.  Naked bodies making love 
    IS NOT ALWAYS OBSCENE, and is not always unsuitable for children!  But we
    have managed ourselves into some kind of bulean thought that this is
    so.  We completely underestimate our childrens ability to perceive and
    comprehend - what registers, what doesn't at what ages, and in this
    nation have unleashed a curious mix of puritan sex ethics and violent
    behavior beyond comprehension.  We have unleashed a malestorm of
    frustrated, violent individuals that cross all social, racial and
    religious groups.  
    
    
    		sorry, this notion of governmental moral setting has been
    nothing but an enormous disaster.  There is precious little perspective
    other than the political group in power, which seeks nothing less
    than to ensure societal conformance agreeable to it's own whims.

    The point about easy copying is a good one, particularly with the
    proliferation of dual-transport cassette recorders, even in some boom
    boxes.
    
    Copying aside however, I'm still having a problem with the concept that
    the parent of a child, at least a child who's of an age where one would
    worry about such things, can't manage to keep up.
    
    Further, if a parent doesn't care enough to do that, then why assume
    they care at all? We have government mandated levels of parental
    involvement now?
    
    I also notice that people are trying to deflect the discussion *away*
    from the new Washington law. In fact, I notice the admission that the
    law is indefensible as somewhat ironic. The reason is, that many people
    that have opposed labeling have done so on the basis of the "domino
    effect", the fear that benign efforts would be turned into Orwelian
    nightmare scenarios. Now that those of us who held such fears are being
    proved correct, we are told that the laws are not the issue; that even
    mentioning them is irrelevent.
    
    All of the proponents of labeling have failed to convince me (I will
    speak only for myself at this point) that there is a problem that needs
    fixing. There are many many many issues in parenting that genuinely
    concern me. I do not believe for one second, however, that solving this
    "problem" makes me a better parent. I'd rather focus my limited parenting
    abilties and resources in other areas
    
    I just feel bad for the innocent victims of these laws, not the children
    or the parents, but for people who have no real responsibility (as I
    see it) in the matter: music industry people and retailers.
    
    Brian

Re .95: (Bob Schuchard)

Yo, Bob, you are hereby hoist upon your own petard:

>        	if there is a sufficient (majority) contituent which desires
>    child-safe malls, then enterprising business's will provide that
>    environment. The Disney parks are living proof that there is quite
>    a considerable fortune to be made in appealing to such a clientele.

Why should the majority not have the right to make malls which are *not*
"child-safe" the exception, and put the burden on "enterprising businesses"
who wish to provide these exceptions?

>    	I'm sorry, there is no only one right way.  Naked bodies making love 
>    IS NOT ALWAYS OBSCENE, and is not always unsuitable for children!  But we
>    have managed ourselves into some kind of bulean thought that this is
>    so.  We completely underestimate our childrens ability to perceive and
>    comprehend - what registers, what doesn't at what ages, and in this

Speak for yourself, Bob. The point under discussion is precisely that such
judgements *are* individual, and forcing *your* judgement that no harm is being
done down *my* throat is far more akin to your horror stories than any limits
presently under discussion. Noone's talking about "naked bodies making love,"
BTW, but about a hypothetical definition of "material not suitable for children."
Personally, I'd say we're in the ballpark of stuff which glorifies violence,
abuse of self and others, especially of a sexual nature...I think you get the
idea.

As far as underestimating the perceptions of children, that seems to be your
*own* position. I've been through a fair amount of training as an adoptive and a
foster parent, and there is substantial evidence that the exposure of young
children to intense "adult" concepts has an extreme (and adverse) affect on
their development, precisely because they *are* so open and perceptive. As
far as comprehension, it is all too easy to *overestimate* a child's ability to
comprehend (as opposed to perceive) issues revolving around sex and violence.
The turmoil and confusion which results from unresolved, yet intense concepts is
part of the problem.

Bob

    
    re: .99 - yes Bob, they are very receptive and open to ideas.
    Unfortunately, when they see and hear these things, especially via
    a friend or other peer group setting, there is NO guidance,
    understanding, perspective applied, except for perhaps raw titallation!
    
    The main point I'm trying to get across is by government regulation
    or other suitable mechanism (my catholic heritage comes to mind) we
    may prevent so called "mainstream: exposure", at least in the adults
    eyes, but the information is not blocked, and instead aquired via
    filters we may very seriously wish were not there!   I'm saying the
    legal government way, is not only not effective, but possibly
    responsible an even more destructive manner.
    
    oh, and guilty as charged on the infliction cause.  I confess i did
    more as a method of agitation, than moral conviction. 
    
    I'm involved in booster activities and frequently chaperone.  I am
    continually astounded at how many parents live behind their "not my
    kid" shrowds, especially when you know their kids do, and you have to
    keep a careful, watchful eye on them so as not to afford opportunities
    to misbehave!  I know full well that speaking to the parent is only
    going to result in massive denial, and will not prevent mischieve.
    Kids are clever, and the more blind the parent, the more clever the
    exploitation.  Conversely, when they understand that you understand
    what they are capable, and likely to try and get away with, the more
    restraint they demonstrate. It does not take any yelling or bluster -
    just enough understanding you are aware of what goes down, and you will
    be looking for it, and you'll be reprimanded when caught.
    
    Two years ago, we took 102 kids to England, ages 12-18, including
    four days staying right on Picadilly Circus - plenty of undesirable
    attractions in abundance.   As chaperones, we did have some late
    evenings, but we also had 102 kids who behaved fabulously - they had
    a good time, and we had no problems with booze, drugs or sex! I'm
    still pretty proud of the way everyone - kids and chaperones, handled
    themselves. 
    
    I've got some experience at this too Bob!
    
    bob

    Anyone wondering what happened to their notes should consult note 17.4.
    
    Thanks,
    Brian
    MUSIC Mod

    re: .94 (Ashforth)
    
>>    Why is it thus unreasonable to presume that your definition of liberty
>>    gives you (as I said) a right to a mall that meets your moral
>>    standards?						^^^^

    > Because my entire argument is and has been that a *society* has a right to
    > regulate itself through the *joint* actions of its members. 
    
    I would never deny society the right to regulate itself. 
    
    However, if society chooses not to regulate this stuff, that is a
    "acceptable scenario" according to MY definition of liberty, and you
    have described it as an "unacceptable scenario" according to yours.
    
    Your "definition of liberty" thus (as I've said) apparently mandates that
    society regulate in this case.
    
>>    I don't think my selling racy rock records "restricts" your ability
>>    to make your own individual judgement.  

>I disagree. If such records become a ubiquitous part of our sonic environment,
>it restricts this ability utterly. 
    
    If "such records become a ubiquitous part of our sonic environment"
    than the public accepts that, and what right does any individual
    have to expect the public to adapt to their moral standards?
    
    > By your line of reasoning, smoking in public places should not be
    > limited, and anyone who doesn't care to breathes the smoke should
    > simply avoid public places. 
    
    I have always been against  regulations that dictate smoking policy on
    privately owned property (and that includes restaurants and places of
    work and.... malls).

    re: .93 (Diamond)
    
    > What rights are being tossed???
    
    I believe an artist should have the right to produce a piece of work
    without a legal mandate that says a sticker MUST be put on it telling
    people that this work is in some way unacceptable.
    
    That is, to my mind, a very obvious, vital and fundamental part of the
    right to freedom of speech.

    
>>    I believe an artist should have the right to produce a piece of work
>>    without a legal mandate that says a sticker MUST be put on it telling
>>    people that this work is in some way unacceptable.
    
>>    That is, to my mind, a very obvious, vital and fundamental part of the
>>    right to freedom of speech.
    
    I agree with your view in Freedom of Speech. But I don't think that
    this freedom is being taken away. The artist is not being told he/she
    can't produce the work, but that it's unacceptable for some viewers
    (children). The sticker dosn't have to say it's unacceptable, but that
    it MAY be unaccaptable. It should be a warning label for the parents so 
    they can then review the album for themselves and decide if they want 
    their kids to listen to it. I don't see this as a violation of the basic 
    right of Free Speech. 
    
    I think we ALMOST agree on the basic principle, but not in the
    implementation. We probably never will agree. This is probably a issue
    for the courts to decide or our elected officials.
    
    Mike

Let's step back a second and take a look at the problem.  My perception of the 
problem is that parents would like a reasonable way to prevent their children 
from being exposed to materials they (the parents) find unsuitable.

Look at the woman who started the crusade in Washington.  She was complaining 
that her four year old had said things on the 2-live-crew album.  Apparently 
the album had been played by an older relative for the four year old.  So the 
answer is the ban the music, right?  WRONG!  It could have easily been an adult 
magazine that was showed to the 4 year old, or a poem, or a maplethorpe 
picture, or an adult video... or the older relative could have just sat there 
and SAID those words.... but let's blame it on the music.

Remember the Judas Priest incedent?  Two teenage boys (both drug addicts, and 
alcoholics who were abused by their parents) shot themselves while listening to 
the Judas Priest album.  Although JP got off in court, it scares me to even 
entertain the thought that someone could blame it on the music, much less bring 
it to court.

But I really haven't addressed the statement I made in the first paragraph.  
Well, you parents can do a couple of things... 

1) Lock them in the closet (not a likely answer)

2) Keep an eye on what they listen to.  If they are at an age where they have 
easy access to things which you don't want them to have (such as me and the 
Eddie Murphy tape), then it's time for you to start talking to them and with 
them.  If that line of communication is shut off from the start, then I think 
it's going be very difficult for you to open it when it's needed.

I see every day kids who get the "we don't talk about that", and "not till your 
older" answers when they ask questions.  Those answers kill that vital line of 
communication.

I think it's fair for those reading this to know that I don't have kids.  I'm 
23 and will be getting married in October.  I'm still young, so I have a farily 
vivid recolection of the early teens.  I remember many of these issues when I 
was on the other side, so I feel I can make some judgements.

And for those of you who are trying oh-so-hard to hide your children from the 
big bad world, do you remember what was dominating the news a little more than 
a year ago?  A war.  Were your kids allowed to turn on the TV while that was 
on?   Could they listen to the radio?  Consider that next time you think about 
supporting a ban on music that talks about sex.

Later...
Steve

    What I want to know is why was a four year old left unattended with a
    teen, especially one who obviously had poor judgement? Isn't the mother
    admitting, in a way, that she doesn't have very good judgement either?
    
    Brian

    re: .108 (Diamond)
    
    > The sticker dosn't have to say it's unacceptable, but that
    > it MAY be unaccaptable. 
    
    I'm not sure how to resond to this other than to just say that
    freedom of speech also implies that the government should not
    stigmatize art either.
    
    We may "just differ" on the importance of that.
    
    	db

    
    
    Ok, for sake of argument lets say that all the albums are labled for
    'questionable' content. You go to a store with you offspring and they ask
    your permission to buy a tape with a warning label on it. You say no.
    
    the kid can
    
     1. still listen to the music on the radio
    
     2. listen to the music on MTV
    
     3. listen/copy the music from a friend
    
     4. buy it themselves without your permission
     
     
    rating a movie can prevent someone from getting into a movie theater,
    rating a piece of music can not prevent someone from listening to it.
    
    Bob
    

    re: .109 (Owen)
    
    > Remember the Judas Priest incedent?  Two teenage boys (both drug
    > addicts, and  alcoholics who were abused by their parents) shot
    > themselves while listening to  the Judas Priest album.  Although JP got
    > off in court, it scares me to even  entertain the thought that someone
    > could blame it on the music, much less bring  it to court.
    
    I don't want to unfairly associate the extreme with the moderate, but
    there's something everyone should know about that case.
    
    The parents of both those kids were... basically nightmares as parents.
    
    It involved alcoholism, physical abuse, neglect, absence, domestic
    violence,....   I'm talking serious "dysfunctional family" here.
    
    Two words immediately come to mind regarding the parents blaming the
    music for their kids suicide:
    
    		"Denial"	and      "Chutzpah"
    
    If you're not familiar with these expressions: "Denial" is an 80's
    kind of term for avoiding facing your problems and their impact.
    Sorta like an alcoholic denying the problems his alcoholism cause
    his wife and children.
    
    "Chutzpah" is a jewish term for "nerve".  "Chutzpah" is what it takes
    for the guy who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy
    on the count of him being an orphan.
    

    I find myself still bemused by Bob Ashforth's "child-proof mall"
    reply #84..
    
>If a law prohibits sales or exposure of certain materials to individuals under
>a certain age, I submit that such a law is *less* restrictive than its *absence*
>would be, since the freedom of *all* parents to make their own individual
>judgements is not thereby restricted in any way. 
    
    So imposition of new laws, which restrict individuals and businesses'
    rights regarding manufacture and sale of music, actually *enhance* 
    our collective rights..  How ?
    
    >The desired effect is to allow concerned parents to *retain* their 
    >rights to educate their own children in the way they think best, rather 
    >than being "strongarmed" into what others feel is acceptable. 
    
    This is a masterpiece of distortion in which when our rights are eroded, 
    we actually have MORE rights, if we just squint into the light just 
    right..  and the use of the word 'strongarmed' is revealing, in that 
    today, NO ONE is coerced into buying ANYTHING, but in Bob's world... 
    
    read on .. again in .94 :
    
>>    What it restricts is the ability to allow your children to go to
>>    places where this stuff is accessible.

>PRECISELY! If said access is limited on the basis of age), my freedom is
>retained, and noone else's is decreased. 
    
    Except the right of artists and record companies to put out albums
    whose covers are unmarred by ugly labels, and the right of music
    retailers to not have to play 'age cop' as if music were liquor or
    cigarettes, and the right of taxpayers to not have to subsidize the new
    thought police..
    
    >If there is no limit to access, my freedom is decreased. Period. 
    
    I agree.. having new laws would give parents Freedom from paying 
    close attention to one's own kid's listening habits.. Freedom from
    having to pay attention to one's own modeling and morals, because the
    government is forcing retailers to do it for them.
    
    karl

    I'm going to digress for a second here...
    
    I couldn't help but notice that, in department stores (like Bradlees
    and K-Mart) there is a strategically placed sticker (one of those
    "Containing the hit songs..." types) on the cover of Nirvana's album,
    but in music stores (like Record Town and Tape World, I know, same
    thing) they don't.
    
    For those of you who haven't seen it (all 3 of you  ;^) ) this
    particular cover has a naked little baby boy floating underwater
    following a dollar bill of some denomination.
    
    OK...back to the ranting and raving.
    
    K.C. 

On my copy of "A Date With Elvis" by The Cramps, there was a sticker over
some naughty bits of a lady (Miss Ivy), but when you removed the sticker you 
found no naughty bits were showing after all.

    re: .114 (Moeller)
    
>    Except the right of artists and record companies to put out albums
>    whose covers are unmarred by ugly labels, 
    
    At least for me, if the issue was merely "marring by ugly labels" the
    case would be weaker than it actually is.
    
    To me, a more substantive complain is the right to put out albums whose
    covers aren't marred with a governmental statement that characterizes
    the material as morally subversive.
    
    Beyond that, I agree very strongly with Karl.  
    
    I *CAN* sorta see his point about it not restricting access, I think
    you're ignoring the fact that it imposes both a financial and legal
    burden/risk.  The implication seems to be that such government
    imposed burdens are not "restrictions" and do not violate "rights".
    
    I also can't agree that the sales of these albums to minor restricts
    your freedom.  We agree that parents have the right to control what
    their children are exposed to, but that "right" does not extend to the
    right to legally mandate other people to enforce their decision -
    especially not at the expense of other people's rights.
    
    	db

    Karl makes, what I think, an interesting comment in a previous reply.
    And I quote:
    
    "retailers do not have to play 'age cop', as if music were liquor or
    cigarettes"
    
    I take it that you have no real problem with the restricting access
    of liquor or cigarettes to minors.  I believe I could go back through
    several replies in here that are against government control of any
    kind, substitute 'liquor' or 'cigarettes' for 'music', and get very
    different results.  So despite all the smoke in here (excuse the pun)
    it seems to me that the key issue is whether or not 'music' can in any
    way be considered harmful to young children.
    
    /rick

    > So despite all the smoke in here (excuse the pun) it seems to me that
    > the key issue is whether or not 'music' can in any way be considered
    > harmful to young children.
    
    I see your point, but I think the difference is in how the first
    amendment applies.
    
    Having the govt put a label (or control) on a form of expression that
    has a particular negative moral stigma is significantly different than
    putting a label/control on a product with proven health risks with
    respect to the first amendment.

    
    for all the prohibition, children seem to be having little problem
    obtaining both liquer and cigarettes.  It is very distressing, on
    the liquer end, direct sales to minors have slowed due to increased
    prosecutution, but seems to have done nothing concerning indirect
    sales.   There is little supporting evidence on the cigarette issue
    also.   
    
    I'd like to think i could go back to a more simple, moral age where
    everyone went to church, and had strong moral values and these nasty
    things didn't happen, but such a time did not exist.  The only
    difference today is that they are much more exposed - due mainly
    by more media exposure (which is driven by attracting viewers, which
    have always loved traffic in gossip, and it's so much easier to watch
    a talk show than dial around!)
    
    I suspect the reason these problems are becoming more wide spread has
    more to do with the fact that children are in fact left more and more
    on their own - or, not under parental supervision.  But, then again,
    kids found dad's guns back then and had accidents, i learned my swear
    words from the kids who went to parochial school, and i smoked my first
    cigarette in 1958 at the age of 7 with an younger and older brother and
    his friend.  The Beatles and my first taste of drink arrived
    simutaneously.  I was NEVER suspended from school, never considered a
    dicipline problem, a good catholic boy from a "good" family. In fact
    I fit a rather standard profile in an upper-middle class town.  
    
    Then just as today, the primary mode of dealing with these evils was denial.
    Always someone else's problem, - lets make a law against it, and then
    we don't have to deal with it.  I'm sorry, make all the laws you want,
    it solves no problems, only makes a statement.
    
    bob

    
    so yesterday at the elementary school where my wife works, she was
    discussing with 2 other mothers of jr. high students how they were
    all going to receive lectures on how to put on condoms and other
    AIDS awareness issues. The other 2 mothers were aghast and were
    insistent  they get advanced word so their children (12-14) are not
    exposed to such evils.
    
    so yesterday afternoon, my 2 jr high daughters came home with, guess
    what we were taught in gym class today.  They said the general reaction
    of all the students was giggles and embarrassment - although everyone
    seemed to know the material already.
    
    Embarassment is normal, many, most kids seem to have an innate sense
    of morality, in addition to what has been learned socially and via
    parenting.   I can't help but think that the instruction in sex and
    aids awareness in a responsible adult fashion re-enforces a sense of
    morals in that the "titilation" aspect is being replaced by factual
    consequences of those actions.
    
    
    re my last reply (.120).  I did not spend my high school years drinking
    and smoking - first exposure was sufficient to deflect those behaviors
    until post-high school days.   But the exposure came early!  My
    parents were experienced enough by the time they got to me (4th child)
    to realize that the ostrich position has no benefits to the child.
    
    
    	bob

>           <<< Note 181.87 by KOALA::DIAMOND "No brag, Just fact." >>>
>    solution. You know and I know that parents are going to want to easiest
>    solution for them. When a task becomes burdonsom or unworkable, they'll
>    start looking for a easier solution. People are going to want (No
>    DEMAND), a easy solution. Most working parents are already having a
>
>    Mike


And here we are right back to incompetent parenting again. No one ever said 
that raising a child was easy. If you want easy, use a condom!

The basic fact is that the government has absolutely no right to tell me how 
to raise my children, or to tell anyone else how to raise their children. 
Being a parent is one hell of alot of responsibility.

Someone earlier stated that they needed to know everything that their children 
were doing and they thought the government should help them in any way 
possible. That is pure and utter malarky! Why does anyone need to know 
everything that their children are doing. Shouldn't you be happy that they 
have a good head on their shoulders and you have taught them to make informed 
choices based on all information available? I hope that when my children (age 
19 mos and to-be-born-any-day-now) are old enough to be buying 
music/books/movies that may be questionable, I will have taught them how to 
use their minds well enough so that even if they do decide to buy a 
questionable tape/book/movie they will be able to see through the lyrical 
drivel.

Geoff

    
    re .122
    
    How do you jump to the conclusion that these parents are incompetent???
    That's absurd!!!! It must be nice being able to sit on a high and
    mighty white horse and judge people you don't even know.
    
    Mike

    > It must be nice being able to sit on a high and
    > mighty white horse and judge people you don't even know.
    
    Isn't that what these would-be labellers are doing?
    
    Peter

    
    Are you reading something I'm not. Who is it they're judging.
    
    Mike

    re: .87 (Diamond)
               <<< TIMBRE::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MUSIC.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< MUSIC V4 >-
>>    In any case, I have also tried to demonstrate that the flaw does not
>>    even exist.  My original proposal still provides a way for them to
>>    get the information they need.
    
>    I'll admit that you have a solution. But, I don't think it's a workable
>    solution. You know and I know that parents are going to want to easiest
>    solution for them. When a task becomes burdonsom or unworkable, they'll
>    start looking for a easier solution. People are going to want (No
>    DEMAND), a easy solution. 
    
    I think that is exactly what is happening.  What's more, I think most
    of us think that is what is happening.
    
    The question to you Mike, is it justifiable for them to demand that
    others make these sacrifices so that THEY may have the "easy" solution?
    
    	db

    Just an opinion, but...
    
    I think that a person who wants to depend on the government to watch
    for their child is the same as taking your child and leaving them on
    someone else's doorstep, for THEM to teach THEIR morals and ways of
    life.
    
    A little extreme, I know, but...
    
    K.C.

    
>>    I think that is exactly what is happening.  What's more, I think most
>>    of us think that is what is happening.
    
>>    The question to you Mike, is it justifiable for them to demand that
>>    others make these sacrifices so that THEY may have the "easy" solution?
    
    If it's the will of the people, then yes it is justifible. In todays
    society, it's impossible to think that a parent can control everything
    their child comes in contact with. At least not by themselves. They do
    have a right to ask the government for help. Please tell me what you
    are giving up if records are being lebeled. If you don't believe in
    record labeling, then you must not believe in anything kind of labeling
    on items like Penthouse or Playboy. And you then must also believe that
    Hard-core Adult books have the right to be sold at any drug-store, and
    anyone no matter what the age has the right to buy them.? You must also
    believe that we the people don't have the right to ask government to
    ask that these magazines be only sold in Adult stores? 
    
    
>>    I think that a person who wants to depend on the government to watch
>>    for their child is the same as taking your child and leaving them on
>>    someone else's doorstep, for THEM to teach THEIR morals and ways of
>>    life.
    
    WHAT?????? This happens all the time. Parents are trusting the
    government to keep their kids safe and in a safe environment every day.
    This place is called school. Also I never said that the government
    should watch for their child. But that the government can be asked to
    HELP.
    
    Mike

 
   >If it's the will of the people, then yes it is justifible. 

    re: .128
    
>    If it's the will of the people, then yes it is justifible. 
    
    How does one measure the "will of the people"?
    
    Majority?
    
    Is the majority allowed to vote away the rights of minority?
    
    Next question:
    
    	If it is "the will of the people" that
    
    	  o Records not be labelled
    	  o Sales to minors are not inhibited
    
    	will YOU accept that, or do you feel you would be justified
    	in govt intervention even if it's against the will of the people?
    
    > Please tell me what you are giving up if records are being lebeled. 
    
    As I've said, I think it is a VERY serious, dangerous violation of
    free speech to require me to put a stamp on my art that stigmatizes 
    the work as somehow morally subversive.
    
    > If you don't believe in record labeling, then you must not believe in
    > anything kind of labeling on items like Penthouse or Playboy. 
    
    Penthouse and Playboy are not labelled, nor do I think they should
    be, nor do they apparently "need" to be.
    
    >And you then must also believe that Hard-core Adult books have the
    >right to be sold at any drug-store, and anyone no matter what the age
    >has the right to buy them.? 
    
    I do not equate hard-core pornography with adult themes in music.
    
    And once again, I'll repeat that if MY kid bought an adult book I would
    look at it as my OWN failure, and not seek to punish the seller as you
    would. 
    

>          <<< Note 181.123 by KOALA::DIAMOND "No brag, Just fact." >>>
>
>    
>    re .122
>    
>    How do you jump to the conclusion that these parents are incompetent???
>    That's absurd!!!! It must be nice being able to sit on a high and
>    mighty white horse and judge people you don't even know.
>    
>    Mike


I'm not judging anyone. You are the one who said that it was burdensome or 
unworkable. If raising children is unworkable or too much of a burden then I 
say yes the parents are incompetent and shouldn't have had the children in the 
first place. 

Reviewing what children watch/listen too is part of the job of parent. 
don't slough it off onto someone else and take yet another right/freedom away 
from us just because most are too lazy to do their job!

Geoff

>>I'm not judging anyone. 
    
    Then what do you call this??????
    
>>And here we are right back to incompetent parenting again. No one ever said 
>>that raising a child was easy. If you want easy, use a condom!
    
    You're calling people incompetent because they don't fall into the
    way YOU think children should be raised. There isn't ONE-TRUE-WAY of
    raising. So don't JUDGE people if they follow your philisophy.
    
    
>>Reviewing what children watch/listen too is part of the job of parent. 
>>don't slough it off onto someone else and take yet another right/freedom away 
>>from us just because most are too lazy to do their job!

    And as I've said before, THERE IS NO FREEDOM BEING TAKEN AWAY. And you
    have yet to prove that there is. Artists will still be able to produce
    what they want to. No one is stopping them. Reviewing what your child
    watches and listens to is a lot easier when you live in NH and only
    have 1 working parent. It becomse more difficult when you have 2
    working parents, and living in NYC. No 2 familys are the same or are
    the conditions in which they live the same.
    
    Mike
    

>    And as I've said before, THERE IS NO FREEDOM BEING TAKEN AWAY. And you
>    have yet to prove that there is. 
    
    Maybe he hasn't, but I've tried to and so far you haven't responded it
    to it.
    
    I think it's quite easily proven:
    
    Right now I am free to produce an album without a government-endorsed
    negative stigmatism on it, and I am free to sell it to whomever I
    want.
    
    The laws we are discussing clearly take away that freedom.
    
    	db

    
    re .db
    
    But freedom of speech dosn't give you those freedoms. You still can
    write and produce anything you want to. Freedom of speech dosn't
    gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE. 
    
    Mike

    re: .134 (Diamond)
    
    > But freedom of speech dosn't give you those freedoms.
    > You still can write and produce anything you want to. 
    > Freedom of speech dosn't gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE.
    
    If the government decide to ban the "sale" of a book advocating 
    revolution, that is not a violation of free speech?

   
    >> But freedom of speech dosn't give you those freedoms.
    >> You still can write and produce anything you want to. 
    >> Freedom of speech dosn't gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE.
  
>If the government decide to ban the "sale" of a book advocating 
>revolution, that is not a violation of free speech?

Dave, your answer is "yes".

    
    Who said anything about banning books??....Only labeling them...
    
    Then again....If we did ban the sale to children, this dosn't fall
    under freedom of speech. The freedom of speech applies to all citizens
    of the US. Before Lincoln, it was illegal to sell books to Blacks.
    Because they were not considered citizens. Now the question comes down
    to what is a citizen???? Are children FULL citizens entitled to ALL
    privilges we have as adults??? Well according to our constitution, they
    arn't. They don't have the right to vote, or run for office, and in
    many states even the right to legally to own land. So by banning books
    fomr the partial citizens, are we violating the freedom of speech????
    Well, it's probably one for the courts, but the supreme court has made
    several rulings on this, and have stated that children are NOT full
    citizens, and not entitiled to some of our basic liberties guranteed by
    our bill of rights.
    
    Mike

    .137 >So by banning books (MUSIC)
    >fomr the partial citizens, are we violating the freedom of speech????
    
    So we're back to music as obscenity, music as a controlled substance.
    
    Boy, I didn't know music was that powerful.  Of course some people
    want to believe it's responsible for a generation of sociopaths.  I'd
    prefer to think it's a matter of the disintegrating family and social
    fabric in which children grow.  Labelling/banning music ?  Pissing in
    the wind.  Legalize drugs, thus taking away the profit motive from 
    dealing.. take the Pentagon's TRULY obscene budget away and give it 
    to the nation's schools and arts programs.  Stop federally subsidizing 
    the breakup of family units.  Take that energy and create a better 
    economic climate.
    
    Nope, it's the music that's ruining and running these youngsters' lives.
    
    karl

>>If the government decide to ban the "sale" of a book advocating 
>>revolution, that is not a violation of free speech?

>Dave, your answer is "yes".

In case there's any doubt, back there in 181.136 I'm agreeing with Dave.  The
government banning "sale" of a book is a violation of free speech.

    Washington state has passed the labeling law.
    
    *sigh*
    
    K.C.

    
    	So when will it be in affect and how will they be rated??

    	The rights of the music writer/maker/listener just might be taken
    away because if an LP was labeled too (whatever) for a person under say
    18 then this LP and songs on it could not be played over the airwaves
    because said under 18 year old might be listening, so yes this music
    might been ban from the mass (IMO). labeling is just the 1st step in
    the freedom we could be loosing, the next step would be its banning from
    radio and MTV/VH1/TNN.
    
    	This is how I see my freedom being threatened as a person, never
    mind how I raise my kid ! and like Geoff said this is my child I'll
    tell her what is right and wrong, good and bad, true or false...and so
    on.
    
    	When I was in jr high or high school (not sure of the time frame)
    Edger Winter released the "They Only Come Out At Night" LP and after
    hearing Frankinstine (sp?) my friend and I went to get the LP to see
    what other song where on it, well at my house my parents saw the LP and
    could not escape the sounds of the LP, but they are very opened minded
    and saw no ill fates, but on the other side of the street my friend's
    parents were the otherside of the coin but it was not the music they
    saw unfit for their son it was the cover art ! they thought it glorifed
    gay life styles so they made him tape up the LP jacket. kinda seem real
    stupid then and now it really sounds stupid but that was their choice,
    no goverment office came in and said that this was bad so no one under
    18 could buy it, it was left to the parent to choose what they felt was
    right for their child.....it worked then and it still can work now.
    
    Chris

    re: .137 (Diamond)
    
    >> re: .134
    
    >>If the government decide to ban the "sale" of a book advocating 
    >>revolution, that is not a violation of free speech?
    
    > Who said anything about banning books??....Only labeling them...
    
    You did Mike:
    
    .134> Freedom of speech dosn't gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE.
    
>    Then again....If we did ban the sale to children, this dosn't fall
>    under freedom of speech. The freedom of speech applies to all citizens
>    of the US. Before Lincoln, it was illegal to sell books to Blacks.
    
    And do you think that was not a violation of freedom of speech?
    
    I don't understand the relevance of your discussion of black/children's
    rights.  I can't remember anyone in here challenging anything on the
    basis of children's rights being violated.
    
    The issue we take concerns the rights of the artists.
    
    	db

    
>>    The issue we take concerns the rights of the artists.
    
    And I said, for you to prove to me where the artists rights are being
    violated. Labeling records for it's content is NOT a violation of the
    artists right of Free Speech. There have been several cases brought
    before the Supreme Court on this very issue since the turn of this
    century. The artist is still able to write and produce anything he/she
    wants. No where is that being restricted. 
    
>>    I don't understand the relevance of your discussion of black/children's
>>    rights.  I can't remember anyone in here challenging anything on the
>>    basis of children's rights being violated.
    
    Because, it's obvious to me that the Artists rights arn't being
    violated. The only people you might be banning the book from is
    children. And since you'd only be banning them from children, then how
    can any persons rights be violated.
    
    Mike

	First, you ban them from children.  Then, you ban them from
	young adults.  Then, you ban them from criminals or other social
	deviants.  Then, you ban them from politically suspect populations...
	
	Eventually, they ban them from YOU!  And you get to go to a nice
	psych rehab center (remember the USSR?) until you get over your
	sickness of wanting these materials.

	Pretty simple progression.

These are not artist's rights, they are the people's rights.

    
    
     kind of strange.... as people from other countries are fighting like 
    crazy to gain bits and pieces of freedom, many people in the U.S. are
    trying like mad to surrender these freedoms at every convience.
    
     Freedom aint free folks.....one of the trade offs of a free society is
    that books that some people don't like sit for sale on bookstore
    shelves. Music, that some people may find offensive, can be bought by
    anybody who wants to part with their money. Nobody has to buy it if
    they don't want or like it, period. 
    
     Now if a private group of "moral do gooders"  wants to maintain a list
    of records that THEY deem offensive. More power to them. In my opinion
    they have every right to do so. And if concerned parents want to
    consult with this group before they let their kids buy a record, be my
    guest. Lets just keep the government and the industry out of it. 
    
     Bob

    
    > kind of strange.... as people from other countries are fighting like 
    >crazy to gain bits and pieces of freedom, many people in the U.S. are
    >trying like mad to surrender these freedoms at every convience.
    
Scary, isn't it?

Music grows out of people's own existance, i.e. their feelings and other 
influences on their lives.  There is not some kind of factory that pumps out 
album after album of of what many would term "offensive" music - the music is
made by people, and it comes from where ever they have been.  We in this 
country should learn to accept these different life experiences and maybe 
concentrate in fixing the inequities that do exist, rather than simply looking 
down our noses and labeling that which disagrees with us as morally subversive 
or some such thing.

Scott

    re: .145 (Diamond)
    
>    And I said, for you to prove to me where the artists rights are being
>    violated. 
    
    What you actually said was (verbatim from .134):
    
    		"THERE IS NO FREEDOM BEING TAKEN AWAY"
    
    This law clearly takes away something artists are free to do.  Do you
    STILL deny that there is no freedom being taken away?
    
    > Labeling records for it's content is NOT a violation of the
    > artists right of Free Speech. 
    
    If I wrote a book advocating revolution in America, would it an
    infringement of free speech if the government put a label
    on it that said or implied that "This book is potentially morally
    subversive"?  
    
    Note that the author is "still able to write and produce anything
    he/she wants".
    
    You see no problem in allowing  the government to require authors to
    print the governments opinion of the morality of their work on the cover?
    You see no violation of "Free Speech" there?
    
    	db
    
    p.s. As noone is claiming a violation of children's rights, I don't
         see why you debate it.  But it's a free country.  ;-)

                     From Mike Diamond's note .132:
    
    >And as I've said before, THERE IS NO FREEDOM BEING TAKEN AWAY. And you
    >have yet to prove that there is. 
    
    How about the FREEDOM of the music retailer from having to be an AGE
    COP?  From having to treat his wares, MUSIC, as A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE?
    Freedom from being LEGALLY LIABLE should the "wrong" (labelled) album
    be sold to an underaged (age yet to be determined) person ?  
    
    >Artists will still be able to produce what they want to. No one is 
    >stopping them. 
    
    How about the artist's FREEDOM to produce material without falling into
    a legally undesirable category?  It's not that big a jump from labelling 
    and categorization to extermination.. ask Tipper Gore, your buddy.  
    Ask the members of Judas Priest, inexplicably put on trial because 
    of the alleged effect of their music on two young drug abusers from 
    broken families.  Can't be the families' fault.. it was the music!
    
    And of course it's going to be the most enlightened, liberal, flexible 
    people involved in the labeling committee(s)... NOT !  will there be 
    a NATIONAL Committee of Music Thought Police ?  Publicly funded, of course.
    Or are we going to be at the mercy of small-town, self-righteous, 
    FUNDAMENTALIST CENSORS ?   NO! ... or will we bully the Music Industry 
    into policing ITSELF, leading to further erosion of the chances for 
    new talent to get exposure ?      
    
    How about the public's right to not have to fund yet another category 
    of Mind Police?  How about the public's FREEDOM to continue to exercise 
    true parenting skills instead of abrogating them to the Government ?
    
    Of course, I wrote these simple, easy to understand points about 30
    replies ago.  And I don't blame you not responding to my .139, because
    I'm sure you can't.  I don't buy your lumping music in with Child Porn 
    for a second.  And, of course, Florida Mind Police have already busted 
    a record store owner, so, Mike, you should rest easy, the forces of 
    ARTISTIC REPRESSION are already on the march, and we soon won't have 
    to actually THINK about anything !
    
    karl

    re: .152 (Moeller)
    
    > Ask the members of Judas Priest, inexplicably put on trial because 
    > of the alleged effect of their music on two young drug abusers from 
    > broken families.  Can't be the families' fault.. it was the music!
    
    See .113

    
>>    This law clearly takes away something artists are free to do.  Do you
>>    STILL deny that there is no freedom being taken away?
    
    No it isn't..... And I'm not the one who's saying it. The Supreme Court
    is. So debate it with them. I guess you have the right to interput the
    bill of rights the way you want, even though the Supreme Court says
    you're wrong.
    
    
>>    If I wrote a book advocating revolution in America, would it an
>>    infringement of free speech if the government put a label
>>    on it that said or implied that "This book is potentially morally
>>    subversive"?  
    
    Yes, this would be a violation of Free Speech.
    But instead putting a label that says.
    	"This material may not be sutible for young children"
    This isn't a violation of Free Speech.  As I said before, the Supreme
    Court has already ruled on this, and found it constitutional.
    
>>    p.s. As noone is claiming a violation of children's rights, I don't
>>         see why you debate it.  But it's a free country.  ;-)
    
    As I've stated before (which I guess you have a very hard time
    comprehending), is that the only restriction that is being imposed is
    on children. But YOU claim, the restriction is on everyone. Well it's
    not.
    
>>    How about the FREEDOM of the music retailer from having to be an AGE
>>    COP?  From having to treat his wares, MUSIC, as A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE?
>>    Freedom from being LEGALLY LIABLE should the "wrong" (labelled) album
>>    be sold to an underaged (age yet to be determined) person ?  
    
    Gee, I've never seen that Freedom on the Bill of Rights. Would you
    please tell me which one it is, and which country!!!
    
>>    How about the artist's FREEDOM to produce material without falling into
>>    a legally undesirable category?  It's not that big a jump from labelling 
>>    and categorization to extermination.. ask Tipper Gore, your buddy.  
>>    Ask the members of Judas Priest, inexplicably put on trial because 
>>    of the alleged effect of their music on two young drug abusers from 
>>    broken families.  Can't be the families' fault.. it was the music!
    
    And they were found not guilty wern't they!!! So where's the point!!!
    
    Obviously you have a very hard time either understanding the
    constitution and the judicial system. The Supreme Court is set up to
    interput the constitution. Either A - you don't know what you're
    talking about, or B - You're really one of the Supreme Court justices
    who also moonlights for DEC. 
    If you want to rewrite the constitution, or change the way the law's are 
    being interputed (which does happen), then I suggest you run for office. 
    The President has the most power here, since he makes appointments to the
    Supreme Court. Good Luck
    

    re: .154 (Diamond)
    
>>>    This law clearly takes away something artists are free to do.  Do you
>>>    STILL deny that there is no freedom being taken away?
    
>    No it isn't..... 
    
    	1) Was I free to do it before this law?
    	2) Am  I free to do it after  this law?
    
    This is clearly a semantic difference between us.  In the hopes of 
    getting onto more productive lines of discussion, I think the
    difference is that you mis-stated your belief.
    
    Instead of saying "No freedom is being taken away", you should have
    said "It is a freedom that you are NOT guaranteed", but I think it is
    CERTAINLY a freedom that is being taken away.
    
    OK?
    
    > I guess you have the right to interput the bill of rights the way you
    > want, even though the Supreme Court says you're wrong.
    
    I, frankly, have no idea what Supreme Court decision you are referring
    to even though I consider myself well-read on this subject.  Could
    give me an idea which decision you are refering to?
    
    But let me ask one thing:
    
    	Do you accept Supreme Court decisions as "proof" of what 
    	rights you SHOULD have?

    
>>    OK?
    
    Agreed!!!
    
    
>>    I, frankly, have no idea what Supreme Court decision you are referring
>>    to even though I consider myself well-read on this subject.  Could
>>    give me an idea which decision you are refering to?
    
    I'll try and get the exact cases for you. 
    
    
>>    	Do you accept Supreme Court decisions as "proof" of what 
>>    	rights you SHOULD have?
    
    This, I'll agree with you. But it's impossible to fight it through the
    courts. The only way to fight it is through legislation. If the courts
    are interputing the law one way, and you don't agree with it, then the
    only way to change their interputation is to change the law (or in this
    case a amendment). The Supreme Court cases which I talked about were
    with a more liberal court, not the very conservative court we have now.
    I don't think any of those rulings would be over turned with this
    court.
    
    A side point on our basic freedoms: (That is if this note can go any
    farther).
    Our basic liberties are not what they were over 200 years ago. They've
    changed with time. One is the right the bare arms. If you read
    Jefferson papers, the reasoning for this right was not for protection
    against burglers or other citizens, but for protection against a out of
    control government. If you take this as the meaning behind the right to
    bare arms, then we the citizens should have the right to bare arms that
    can defeat the government (if need be). I sure as hell woulnd't want
    private citizens with Nuclear weapons (or for that matter) tanks, and
    bozoka's (not that some private citizens don't). The interputation has
    changed it's meaning over the last 200 years. And I susptect there will
    be others to change their meaning in the next 200 years. BTW...I don't
    believe in gun control. 8*) 8*)
    
    Mike

    re: .156 (Diamond)
    
>    I'll try and get the exact cases for you. 
    
    Thanks, I appreciate that you're willing to do that.
    
    ------------------------------------------------------
    
    Getting back to the topic.
    
    In my feeling, selling a racy record to a kid does NOT violate anyone's
    rights.  Governmental stigmatization, or restriction of sale does
    violate IMHO the artists rights and the justification (making it easier
    for parents...) is NOT sufficient justification.
    
    The root of this disagreement is really a "where do you draw the line"
    issue.
    
    The anti-labellers more-or-less say everything is on one side of the
    line.  You, and in some cases perhaps the Supreme Court, say that there
    is some distinction that justifies putting a "this may be unsuitable
    for children" label on one side, and a "this may be unsuitable [in some
    other way]" on different sides.
    
    In my opinion what the label is intended for is not as relevant as what
    it's effect is.  The net effect of putting a label on a record means
    that the government becomes a major participant in areas like what
    records get airplay, released, stocked, etc.
    
    It may be true that putting a label on record on a label in and of
    itself doesn't prohibit airplay, release and sales, but Joe McCarthy
    labelling someone a "communist sympathizer" also did not, in and of
    itself, prevent that person from getting jobs and such.
    
    	db

>>    How about the FREEDOM of the music retailer from having to be an AGE
>>    COP?  ... Freedom from being LEGALLY LIABLE ...
    
>    Gee, I've never seen that Freedom on the Bill of Rights. Would you
>    please tell me which one it is, and which country!!!
    
    What a classic.. you challenge us to show exactly WHAT freedoms would
    be taken away by treating music as pornography, and I/we give you
    A **DOZEN**, and instead of replying, you wrap yourself in the Bill of
    Rights.  Okay, the First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech.
    
    >(re Judas Priest going on trial):
    >And they were found not guilty wern't they!!! So where's the point!!!
    
    The POINT is that they went on TRIAL AT ALL !   (unbelievable..)
    
    >Obviously you have a very hard time either understanding the
    >constitution and the judicial system. 
    
    And I notice that every time you're backed in a corner you wrap
    yourself in the Flag.  Nixon tried that, too.
    
    I'm out of here.  The level of discourse from Mr. Diamond has descended 
    to a juvenile level ("don't argue with ME, go argue with the
    President!"), and I guess that all the problems of Western Civilization 
    will magically depart if we just keep juveniles from listening to 
    the sort of music Mr. Diamond does not like.
    
    Simple solutions from simple minds.
    
    karl moeller

Well Mike, now the law has passed I guess that you are happy. The government 
will tell you how to raise your children.  You won't have to worry about them 
deviating from the "norm". You can let them go into record stores and not be 
corrupted by "evil" music from degenerate bands. What do you think about the 
following, should they be banned as evil:

1) "Who Are You" - The Who - contains the lyrics "who the f(*k are you"
2) "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" - The Beatles - Talks about LSD right
3) "Squeeze Box" - The Who - Are they talking about a xylophone or a pair of 
 	breasts? not sure we'll ban it just to be safe
4) the album cover from the Blind Faith album with the naked lady on the cover.
5) "Casey Jones" - The Grateful Dead - They mention cocaine ban it now you'll 
	teach the children to want to do evil drugs.
6) "Ohio" - CSNY - we must ban this one too, it blasphemies the government 
	about killing their own children (can you say Tienemin Square?)
7) "Cocaine" - Eric Clapton - again, this song teaches children to do evil 
	subsatnces.
8) "The Mighty Casey"(?) - Meatloaf - talks about getting it on with a woman 
	and includes sexually oriented sound effects
9) Madonna - she pretends to play with herself on stage, we can't teach 
	children about auto-eroticism


If you need more examples just let me know. 

Hey, I've got an idea, we'll ban everything except Barry Manilow and Donny and 
Marie Osmond.

------------------------------------
 
>          <<< Note 181.156 by KOALA::DIAMOND "No brag, Just fact." >>>

>    are interputing the law one way, and you don't agree with it, then the

	The word is interpret(ing)(ation).

>  only way to change their interputation is to change the law (or in this
>  case a amendment). The Supreme Court cases which I talked about were
>  with a more liberal court, not the very conservative court we have now.
>  I don't think any of those rulings would be over turned with this
>  court.

	Just because the supreme court states something doesn't mean it's 
	right.    
>
>    A side point on our basic freedoms: (That is if this note can go any
>    farther).
>    Our basic liberties are not what they were over 200 years ago. They've
>    changed with time. One is the right the bare arms. If you read
>    Jefferson papers, the reasoning for this right was not for protection
>    against burglers or other citizens, but for protection against a out of
>    control government. If you take this as the meaning behind the right to
>    bare arms, then we the citizens should have the right to bare arms that
>    can defeat the government (if need be). I sure as hell woulnd't want
>    private citizens with Nuclear weapons (or for that matter) tanks, and
>    bozoka's (not that some private citizens don't). The interputation has
>    changed it's meaning over the last 200 years. And I susptect there will
>    be others to change their meaning in the next 200 years. BTW...I don't
>    believe in gun control. 8*) 8*)
 
	This is still true. Yes the citizens have the right to any arms that 
are deemed necessary. Personally I don't want my neighbor to have a nuclear 
bomb, but then again I don't want my government to have one either.

	BTW I can still bare my arms any time I like, that is not yet against 
the law. I think you meant keep and bear arms. 

Geoff

    
>>    What a classic.. you challenge us to show exactly WHAT freedoms would
>>    be taken away by treating music as pornography, and I/we give you
>>    A **DOZEN**, and instead of replying, you wrap yourself in the Bill of
>>    Rights.  Okay, the First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech.
    
    No you haven't.... In fact you haven't even shown me ONE. I suppose in
    your mind you did, but in reality you didn't. All you've posted is how
    YOU interput the Freedom of Speech Admendment. That dosn't show
    anything. On the other side, I've shown you that the Supreme Court
    (which by the way is empowered to interput the Constitution), has a
    totally different view of it's interputation then you do. And in this
    particular case I agree with them.
    
>>    The POINT is that they went on TRIAL AT ALL !   (unbelievable..)
    
    You mean to tell me that only GUILTY people should be brought to trial. Boy
    that would save a lot of money for our taxpayers. I hate to tell you
    this, but there have been a few innocent people who've gone to trial.
    Obviously you've never watched Perry Mason.
    
>>    And I notice that every time you're backed in a corner you wrap
>>    yourself in the Flag.  Nixon tried that, too.
    
    Where am I doing this. Please post the statement where I'm doing this.
    Believe me, you've never backed me into a corner. You're a legend in
    you're own mind Karl. Good luck in Congress. We need more like you
    there.

>>Well Mike, now the law has passed I guess that you are happy. 
    
    Well, we'll see how the Supreme Court interupts this. I'm sure someone
    will chalenge this.
    
    I don't agree with all your examples. Do you know specifically what the
    law says?? How it's going to be labeled?? If I were to do the labeling,
    I sure as hell wouldn't pick all of them.
    
    
>>	Just because the supreme court states something doesn't mean it's 
>>	right.    
    
    That's true, but how are you going to change it. Kill them???
    
    
>>	This is still true. Yes the citizens have the right to any arms that 
>>are deemed necessary. Personally I don't want my neighbor to have a nuclear 
>>bomb, but then again I don't want my government to have one either.

    Where do you live???? Here's a list of firearms that if you have in
    your possession you'll go to jail (IN ANY STATE). These are Federal
    Crimes.
    
    . Automatic Weapons.
    . Bazooka
    . M-1 Tank
    . Hawk Missle
    
    Obviously the list is about 1000 times longer.
    
    Mike

    
    It'll be a pretty cold day in hell when I let David "The Invisible
    Man" Souter and Clarence "Hi-Tech Lynching for the Uppity Black Man"
    Thomas decide what I should think about another person/artist's
    work.
    
    For my money, the Supreme Court is a pretty light-weight outfit
    in comparison to previous courts in American history.
    
    BD
    
    

    Mike,
    
    It's time you stopped spouting about the Supreme Court agreeing with
    you and put your money where your mouth is. You need to produce one
    case where the Suprement Court interprets this the way you do (I'll
    help you by telling you that a lawyer friend of mine, who I just called
    because I was getting peeved by this, told me that in his recollection
    the Supreme Court has not ruled on any speech/music as pornography
    matter, so you've got your work cut out for you).
    
    In the meantime, I, and I bet a few others in here, feel your
    invocation of the name "Supreme Court" is an empty attempt to persuade
    people your arguments have credibility. So, put up or... well, you get
    the idea.
    
    Brian

>>>    The POINT is that they went on TRIAL AT ALL !   (unbelievable..)
>    
>    You mean to tell me that only GUILTY people should be brought to trial. 
    
    Whoa....do we really have anyone in here who thinks that Judas Priest
    (or Ozzy or anybody else) should be held *liable* for some song they
    recorded which was being listened to by someone when they blew their
    brains out?  I think that these types of suits don't *deserve* a day in
    court.
    
    Yes, J.P. were not convicted, but then again, who paid all their legal
    fees?  And their plane tickets to fly over from the UK to testify, and
    any bonds they may have had to post, etc.  Not to mention the amount of
    time they lost having to deal with a lawsuit that was ridiculous to
    start with!
    
    Maybe Roman Polanski should sue the Beatles because Charles Manson
    though "Helter Skelter" was a secret call to rise up and murder the
    bourgeoisie...
    
    It's this whole attitude that I find totally out of touch with reality. 
    Anyone who really thinks that rock musicians stay awake nights trying
    to figure out how to manipulate people with their lyrics isn't living
    in the same world *I* do...
    
    And as far as passing legislation that the "majority" wants, *what*
    majority?  The last local election held in my town had a whopping 13%
    turnout.  Turnout at federal; elctions are equally dismal, didn't the
    88 election have a less than 50% turnout? So a small, organized
    minority could have easily swayed the outcome. 
    
    							Brian

    
    re .163
    
    The case had to do with pornography (ie the written word or pictures),
    not music. But it can easily be applied Music. 
    
    
>>    Whoa....do we really have anyone in here who thinks that Judas Priest
>>    (or Ozzy or anybody else) should be held *liable* for some song they
>>    recorded which was being listened to by someone when they blew their
>>    brains out?  I think that these types of suits don't *deserve* a day in
>>    court.
    
    Whoa....How do you extrapilate this from what I said. I've never said
    that JP should be held liable for a song. In fact I'll say right now,
    that I don't feel they should, and that the trial was a complete joke.
    The point I'm making, is that our court system worked, and they were
    found not guilty. I'd really have a problem if they were found guilty.
    
    
>>    Yes, J.P. were not convicted, but then again, who paid all their legal
>>    fees?  And their plane tickets to fly over from the UK to testify, and
>>    any bonds they may have had to post, etc.  Not to mention the amount of
>>    time they lost having to deal with a lawsuit that was ridiculous to
>>    start with!
    
    This isn't the only stupid lawsuit ever to go before the courts. And it
    probably won't be the last. Like the guy who escaped from prison, and
    wasn't caught for 2 years. He then suid the prison system for allowing
    him to escape and caused him all this anguish. At this point, the judge
    should pull out a gun and shoot the lawyer.
    
>>    And as far as passing legislation that the "majority" wants, *what*
>>    majority?  The last local election held in my town had a whopping 13%
>>    turnout.  Turnout at federal; elctions are equally dismal, didn't the
>>    88 election have a less than 50% turnout? So a small, organized
>>    minority could have easily swayed the outcome. 
    
    I agree it's not a majority. Let me know when you come up with a better
    system. I'm all for it.
    
    Mike

    re: .165 (Diamond)
    
    > The case had to do with pornography (ie the written word or
    > pictures),  not music. But it can easily be applied Music.
    
    Mike,
    
    I'd still appreciate a more specific reference but you seem to being
    "taking a lot of liberty" (no pun intended, honest) in applying
    a ruling about pornography to music lyrics as if "the Supreme Court
    said" something about labelling music.
    
    In fact, if it's the ruling I'm thinking about, it included an attempt
    to define "pornography" and that definition certainly does not "easily"
    apply to music.   In fact, my take on it, was that it was carefully 
    crafted to avoid including any art form that contains appeal to
    something other than the erotic.
    
    My recollection was that the definition went something like
    Pornography is material whose sole purpose and effect is to appeal
    to the erotic and contains no other culturally or socially redeeming
    content.  It's clear and only purpose is to arouse.
    
    I think it's an admirable effort to define pornography (a difficult
    task) MAINLY BECAUSE it applies to almost all of what is offered AS
    pornography and (most importantly) almost NOTHING that isn't.
    
    I certainly can not think of ANY music that meets that test, thus
    if we're thinking of the same Supreme Court case:
    
    	1) I think you are way off in applying it to music
    
    	2) It had nothing to do with labels
    
    Thus I think you have little justification for throwing the weight
    of the Supreme Court to support your position on this issue.
    

    re: .160 (Diamond)
    
>    You mean to tell me that only GUILTY people should be brought to trial. 
    
    Mike,
    
    Just as there needs to be stringent rules for convicting people, there
    also needs to be stringent rules for bringing them to trial.
    
    One flaw in our system is that trials can be used to persecute people.
    You can ruin someone or some company just by bringing them to trial
    on bogus charges/lawsuits.
    
    Companies do this all the time:  Often big companies bring little
    companies to trial over various things (patents, etc.) just because
    they know the little company can't afford the legal costs.  Or maybe,
    the companies can't afford the bad press.
    
    Patients bring doctors to trial on bogus malpractice charges because
    they know they can at least negotiate a settlement less than the legal
    costs.  Or the doctor may settle to avoid losing other patients in
    the publicity of the trial.
    
    And, governments, including ours, have frequently used this method
    against political targets (have you ever read the evidence on which
    the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were brought to trial?)
    
    Perhaps you didn't realize that even being brought to trial is a
    serious action with penalties and punishments of its own.
    
    You may differ, but I don't think it's that hard to understand why
    the rest of us are outraged that parents who abused and neglected their
    kids could bring an artist to trial for the suicide of their kids, on 
    the basis that some subjective lyrics is what killed their kids.
    
    There's a jewish word for that: "Chutzpah".
    
    "Chutzpah" sorta means "nerve", but it's best defined by an example:
    "Chutzpah" is when you kill your parents and throw yourself on the
    mercy of the court on the count of being an orphan.
    
    It's very scary to the rest of us Mike, and I think it should be to you
    as well.
    
    	db

    
>>    My recollection was that the definition went something like
>>    Pornography is material whose sole purpose and effect is to appeal
>>    to the erotic and contains no other culturally or socially redeeming
>>    content.  It's clear and only purpose is to arouse.
    
    Yes, I agree with interputation. Howeve, how do say that Pictures are
    more erotic then the written word??? You can't. In fact, there are
    magazines that are sold strictly as erotic material and contain no
    other culturally or socially redeeming content, yet they contain NO
    pictures. Strictly the written word. 
    
>>    I certainly can not think of ANY music that meets that test, thus
>>    if we're thinking of the same Supreme Court case:
    
    Oh, I can. 
    
>>    Thus I think you have little justification for throwing the weight
>>    of the Supreme Court to support your position on this issue.
    
    And that's your opinion. Which you're entitled to. Lets wait and see,
    how the Supreme Court is going to handle the Washington Labeling law.
    I'm sure it's going to be challenged. That way we won't have to try and
    apply past Supreme Court cases to the current issue.
    
    Mike
 
        
    

    
    re 167
    
    DB,
    
    I agree with you. Please read my later responces. Trials like this
    happen ALL THE TIME. Until something happens to stop it, it will
    continue to happen. So I wasn't the least surprise when JP was brought
    to trail. Thank God (pun intented) our court system worked. My mom was
    on a jury of one such bogus trial. It was a joke. But the defendent
    won. What scares me is the ones that make it. 
    
    Mike

    Re: Note 181.168           
    
>>>    I certainly can not think of ANY music that meets that test, thus
>>>    if we're thinking of the same Supreme Court case:
    
>    Oh, I can. 
    
    Well?  Like what, for instance?
    
    K.C.

    re: .168 (Diamond)
    
>    Yes, I agree with interputation. Howeve, how do say that Pictures are
>    more erotic then the written word??? You can't. 
    
    I think the relevant question is not which is more erotic,
    but rather which is more subject to subjective interpretation.
    
    I've always been told that reading leaves more to the imagination.
    
    > In fact, there are magazines that are sold strictly as erotic material
    > and contain no other culturally or socially redeeming content, yet they
    > contain NO pictures. Strictly the written word. 
    
    Which is "more erotic"?  A written essay describing a sexual encounter,
    or a poem set to meter?  
    
>>    I certainly can not think of ANY music that meets that test, thus
>>    if we're thinking of the same Supreme Court case:
    
>    Oh, I can. 
    
    OK, give me an example.
    
    > Lets wait and see, how the Supreme Court is going to handle the
    > Washington Labeling law. 
    
    As a side-note, I think it will be struck down but not on 1st amendment
    issues (see prior critiques of the law).
    
    > That way we won't have to try and apply past Supreme Court cases to the
    > current issue.
    
    Until that happens neither of us should be throwing the weight of the
    Supreme Court behind our positions.
    
    	db

    RE: .145 (Mike Diamond)
    
>>>    The issue we take concerns the rights of the artists.
    
>    And I said, for you to prove to me where the artists rights are being
>    violated. Labeling records for it's content is NOT a violation of the
>    artists right of Free Speech. There have been several cases brought
>    before the Supreme Court on this very issue since the turn of this
>    century. The artist is still able to write and produce anything he/she
>    wants. No where is that being restricted. 
    
    I assume that you did not read nor understand the implications of the 
    posting earlier on the 7-11 case.  Ed Meese successfully strong-armed 
    a number of retail chains into discontinuing sales of 
    constitutionally-protected reading material ("Playboy", "Penthouse")
    by use of his powerful (unelected) position in the government.
    
    This position reflected not the "will of the people", but the moral 
    position of a powerful (unelected) individual.
    
    He was able to do this through threats and intimidation tactics based
    on the premise that this constitutionally protected material was
    morally unsuitable and that any stores that carried it would be
    publicly labelled by the government as immoral monsters.  Any such
    public labelling would likely erode their ability to function in the 
    marketplace.
    
    The stores acquiesced, deciding that it was better to give up a few 
    freedoms than be bullied out of their livelihood.  This move
    effectively denied the magazines access to the marketplace.
    
    And you don't think that this in any way eroded anyone's freedom of
    speech?  If you think not, I'd be interested in hearing why not.
    
    Many people are all to willing to give up their preciousand hard-won 
    freedoms for the sake of convenience or for the elusive promise of 
    protection from everything in life that they can be convinced is 
    potentially harmful.
    
    Let's just get rid of that pesky and vague "Bill of Rights".  It only
    protects people that we don't want to hear.
    
    - Dave

    
    Re -.1
    
    	Hear Hear !!  I don't think our founding fathers intended for the
    the elected ( or unelected ) politicians to have say over how and what
    we can say, print, believe, dress and behave.  Provided we're not
    harming anyone else, or impinging on their rights, no one should have
    the right to dictate our morals to us.  
    
    						-Jimbo
    
    PS - has anyone heard the song 'Warning Parental Advisory' by John
    Wesley Harding and Steve Wynn?  It's hilarious - it's on the _Just Say
    Anything_ compilation album from Sire.
    

    There was a cute commercial on MTV this weekend:
    
    It starts with a bunch of quotes from various labelling luminaries (I
    recognized Rev Wildmon, and think it also had Hollings, Helms  and
    Gore) saying things like "MTV contributes nothing culturally and
    educationally to..." 
    
    The "reply" was a one-liner that might seem sorta snide, but really
    hits the nail on the head:
    
    		"Who asked you?"

    
>>    I assume that you did not read nor understand the implications of the 
>>    posting earlier on the 7-11 case.  Ed Meese successfully strong-armed 
>>    a number of retail chains into discontinuing sales of 
>>    constitutionally-protected reading material ("Playboy", "Penthouse")
>>    by use of his powerful (unelected) position in the government.
    
    It's amazing how many people in this conference are so apt in telling
    me how I preceive things. NO-WAY-NO-HOW-NO-WHERE did I ever say that I
    agree with this. Please do not make statements like this without also
    posting MY statement where I agree with this. If you can't (which
    in this case you can't), then please don't post it. In fact I suggest
    you remove it. Why start a argument which dosn't exist.
    
    Mike
    

    RE: .175
    
    I said "I assume" because it seemed (and seems) clear to me that you
    do not draw an analogy between the actions of Mr. Ed (Meese) and the 
    drive to have government label the moral acceptability of music/lyrics.  
    
    I contend that the latter will soon begin to look very much like the 
    former, with the "unacceptable" musical material being denied access to 
    the marketplace.
    
    Your position is that labelling will not infringe on anyone's freedom
    of speech, only on their access to the marketplace.  I contend that
    it amounts to the same thing.  (Is freedom to air your views only to
    yourself while locked in solitary confinement still "freedom of speech"?)
    Clearly we disagree.  Nothing personal.  Really.
    
    Whether or not you agree with the actions of Mr. Ed is entirely beside 
    the point.  
    
    - Dave

    Mike,
    
    Glad to see you back.
    
    You referred to a Supreme Court decision which I think you
    are misapplying.  Clearly we hit a dead end there.  Let's go
    another way.
    
    You've told me what you think the Supreme Court thinks.  I'd like 
    to know what YOU think.
    
>>    Labeling records for it's content is NOT a violation of the
>>    artists right of Free Speech. There have been several cases brought
>>    before the Supreme Court on this very issue since the turn of this
>>    century. The artist is still able to write and produce anything he/she
>>    wants. No where is that being restricted. 
    
    If I wrote a book advocating revolution in America, do YOU think it
    would be an infringement of free speech if the government put a label
    on it that said or implied that "This book is potentially morally
    subversive"?  
    
    Would YOU support the government if it did that?
    
    Note that the author is "still able to write and produce anything
    he/she wants".
    
    YOU see no problem in allowing  the government to require authors to
    print the government's opinion of the morality of their work on the cover?

    
    I don't agree with Mr Ed, and I don't agree with his actions. It is a
    illegal tactic. But it is practiced not only by people in political
    power, but by other citizens. And unfortunatly I don't see a very easy
    way to battle it. I'd hope some company as big as 7-11 would stand up
    to strong-arm tactics like that, but I guess not.
    
    Your assumptions of what I believe is totally wrong. Please try not to
    assume what I believe. You obviously have no understanding of what I
    believe.
    
    Our basic differences come down to this. You want to have a freedom of
    sale of a product to anyone anywhere and at anytime. You see that
    restrictions of ANY kind of material to anyone as a violation of the
    freedom of speech. Even the sale of Hardcore pornography to children
    under the age of 12.
    
    Where I differ, is to the sale of such material to children. Everything
    else I agree with. How you implement this, I'm very open on. One way is
    to still alow the sale, but somehow label them. The other way is to
    totally restrict the sale (which is being done today) to minors. And as
    I've said before, putting a restriction on pornography to children is
    not a violation of anyones right. If you want to interput the
    Bill-of-Rights differently...So be it.
    
    The other argument here is that music/lyrics can't be labeled as
    pornography, because it's art. Well the same argument can be applied to
    Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse. Yet they are labeled.
    
    Mike

    
>>    If I wrote a book advocating revolution in America, do YOU think it
>>    would be an infringement of free speech if the government put a label
>>    on it that said or implied that "This book is potentially morally
>>    subversive"?  
    
    This would definetly be a violation of Free Speech.
    
>>    Would YOU support the government if it did that?
    
    Nope.
    
    
    Now let me ask you 1 question...
    
    Should the Government be allowed to prohibit public nudity from The
    Commons in Boston?????
    
    Mike 

db:>>    If I wrote a book advocating revolution in America, do YOU think it
>>    would be an infringement of free speech if the government put a label
>>    on it that said or implied that "This book is potentially morally
>>    subversive"?  
    
md:    >This [labelling] would definetly be a violation of Free Speech.
    
    But earlier Mike Diamond stated, 
    
    >But freedom of speech dosn't give you those freedoms [from labelling].
    >You still can write and produce anything you want to. Freedom of 
    >speech dosn't gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE. 
    
    i.e. labelling is not a violation of free speech.  So which is it ? 
    
    karl
    

    RE: .178
    
    We're getting there.  I guess our main disagreement is on what we
    believe tends to happen in our current political environment once 
    something gets labelled "morally/politically subversive" by our 
    government.
    
    First, a clarification:  I have no problem with restricting certain 
    products from minors.  They are certainly a legally well-established 
    special case.  They are not given full rights of citizenship while under 
    the nominal care and guidance of their parents (e.g., cannot vote; not 
    allowed to purchase alcohol, cigarettes; serve in the military; etc.)
    We have less disagreement here than you might think.
    
    I look at labelling as a first step toward the government or its agents 
    removing all access to information deemed "morally/politically 
    offensive".  There seems to be some validity to this based on the 
    Meese action which affected materials *behind the counter*, available to
    *adults only*, Florida imprisonment of record store owners, and Florida 
    prosecution of 2 Live Crew for performing "obscene" material in an 
    *adults-only* club.  (For earlier examples of political persecution 
    for "politically subversive" content see the House UnAmerican
    Activities Commission, led by Joseph McCarthy.  But I digress...)
    
    Frankly, this kind of stuff scares me.  Once people are persuaded that
    certain material is "morally/politically subversive" (i.e., they don't
    like/agree with the message), it is a relatively easy follow-on step
    for the powers-that-be to persuade folks that it shouldn't be available
    at all.  Since many of the materials in question are pretty offensive
    and/or unpopular with the mainstream, it isn't very difficult to
    muster public outrage about the materials and impose an outright ban.
    
    This is why I am opposed to record labelling.  It will be implemented
    by the likes of the PRMC, who have an agenda all their own which does
    not necessarily correspond to the rights of US citizens as guaranteed 
    by the US Constitution.
    
    FWIW, I don't like what 2 Live Crew, et al., have to say either.  But
    I will defend their right to say it.
    
    - Dave

>>md:    >This [labelling] would definetly be a violation of Free Speech.
    
>>    But earlier Mike Diamond stated, 
    
>>    >But freedom of speech dosn't give you those freedoms [from labelling].
>>    >You still can write and produce anything you want to. Freedom of 
>>    >speech dosn't gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE. 
    
    Don't take my statements out of context. In my second statement I'm
    talking about the labeling of material for children, NOT for the
    general populas. There's a BIG difference.
    
    Mike
    
    
    
    
    

Re: 181.182   
    
>>>md:    >This [labelling] would definetly be a violation of Free Speech.
    
>>>    But earlier Mike Diamond stated, 
    
>>>    >But freedom of speech dosn't give you those freedoms [from labelling].
>>>    >You still can write and produce anything you want to. Freedom of 
>>>    >speech dosn't gurantee you FREEDOM OF SALE. 
    
>    Don't take my statements out of context. In my second statement I'm
>    talking about the labeling of material for children, NOT for the
>    general populas. There's a BIG difference.
    
    What is the difference between labeling material for children and
    labeling material for adults?  It is the ADULTS who read the labels.
    Labeling for Children IS labeling for the general populas.
    
    (Can someone please say what I am struggling to say here?  YOU know
    what I mean.)
    
    K.C.

    
>>    First, a clarification:  I have no problem with restricting certain 
>>    products from minors.  They are certainly a legally well-established 
>>    special case.  
    
    How do you do this without FIRST censoring what the material is about??
    Then you'll have to put some kind of LABEL on it, in order for the
    store clerk to know not to sell it to minors. 
    
    
>>    This is why I am opposed to record labelling.  It will be implemented
>>    by the likes of the PRMC, who have an agenda all their own which does
>>    not necessarily correspond to the rights of US citizens as guaranteed 
>>    by the US Constitution.
    
    How can you have BOTH situation here. You agree to labeling of
    Penthouse and Playboy, but not records??? You have a certain MORAL
    standard which you see no problem imposing on society (ie not selling
    playboy to minors). Yet if someone else has a moral standard to the
    right of you moral line, you LABEL them as infriging on your
    constitutional rights. 
    
    Mike    
    
    

One reason I left this note many replies ago is that many noters appeared
incapable of differentiating between "item A" and their own opinion of what
would *inevitably* result from "item A," or what appeared to *them* to be its
equivalent. I've tried to capture some issues below which seem to generate a lot
of such "fuzzy thinking."


(1) Censorship vs. classification

Despite the title of this note, *NOONE* has advocated censorship in any
reply I've seen. Labelling something amounts to no more than *classifying* its
content; censorship would be the prevention of publication of something based
on its content. Also, I've seen noone defend "morally subversive" as 
legitimate axis on which classification is valid. Something along the lines of
"Contains material which may not be suitable for young children" is, I believe,
quite defensible as a classification, and reasonable in principle. If you think
that "labeling is the first step to censorship," see (2) below.

(2) The domino theory

Many noters seem to believe in the theory (indefensible, IMHO) that taking *one*
step in any direction inevitably results in a headlong, uncontrollable slide in
that direction. Any such individual should, by rights, live in the center of their
respective continent, as moving towards any coast would, of course, eventually
result in death by drowning. The law which was the instigation for this note
shows quite clearly that any error in judgement can be made at *any* time, in
*any* magnitude- there's no legal requirement for subtlety. It's often sensible-
and it *is* possible- to apply a given principle with carefully considered
judgement, not with a total lack of any responsibility.

(3) Labels can be ignored at will

Classifying artistic material as suggested in (1) leaves any and all individuals
free to ignore said classification if they doubt its merits. Taking a step
further and preventing sales of such material to persons under a certain age
(which, again, I find totally reasonable) still allows the parents of such
persons to exercise their own judgement in dismissing such classifications as
incorrect or irrelevant. It also is worth considering that music is a medium
which must be accessed "linearly" as regards time- one cannot "glance" at it as
one can a visual medium. I see classification of "mature subject matter" in a
sound medium as analogous to the same principle as applied to videotape; in both
cases, the outside appearance offers no clue as to content.

(4) Should tolerance extend to racism?

Rap was the initial subject of the law which was the initial topic of this note.
Attackers of rap's critics claim the moral high ground and claim racism as the
basis of any criticisms of rap. Poppycock, to be polite. Rap has been around for
years, and debate over its "musicality" has raged since its creation. The new
popularity of rap is a different story. Modern rap, it seems, has adopted
expressions of rage, violence- and yes, racism- as de rigeur topics. I've heard
and read that folks are puzzled as to why rap's popularity suddenly surged;
maybe this is why?

"Musician" magazine printed one lyric which referred to Asians as "Oriental
one-penny-countin' M*th*rf*ck*rs." Another one advocated "Deal with him real
simple/put a bullet in his temple" (applied, by the way, to a Jew). So this is
"valuing differences?" The writers in question claimed total innocence, saying
"Hey, don't take it literally!" and "Oh, the lyrics aren't really important."
Yeah, right.

There's a fine line between art which expresses the previously suppressed rage
of people who have been trodden on, and the condoning of actions and attitudes
which are themselves racist, violent, and/or discriminatory. It *is* quite
possible to capitalize on the the human weakness present in all of us in order
to make a buck- selling hate, selling the message that it's all someone else's
fault, whatever. I'm not saying this represents all rap, I'm just saying that
it's *more* than valid for any and all of us- especially the artistic community
itself- to separate the "wheat" from the "chaff." It seems inordinately logical
to at least classify material which falls into that gray area wherein we each
must make our own judgements.

(5) Principles vs. implementation

Dismissing a valid principle by saying "Implementing it is impractical" doesn't
cut it. Attacking a principle by dwelling on an implementation based on it also
doesn't cut it. It's worth discussing principles in their own right, IMHO,
leaving implementation discussions for a time when a valid principle has been
agreed upon.

For all marathon noters who've made it this far, you get a reading award for this
week...

Cheers,
	Bob

    re: .185 (Ashforth)
    
> One reason I left this note many replies ago is that many noters appeared
> incapable of differentiating between "item A" and their own opinion of what
> would *inevitably* result from "item A," or what appeared to *them* to be its
> equivalent.
    
    You cited that reason and I responded to it with a question which you
    did not answer.
    
    From .90:
    
>    If a candidate promises "free health care" is it wrong for me to
>    challenge him on the basis of raising taxes, deficit,
>    cutting-other-programs  because he only said "free health care" and not
>    "I will raise taxes, cut programs, or raise the deficit"?
    
    Instead of leaving the table, the right thing to do is convince us
    that what we think is "inevitable" is not.

    re: .179 (Diamond)
    
>    Should the Government be allowed to prohibit public nudity from The
>    Commons in Boston?????
    
    Yes.
      
    Your turn.  ;-)
    
    

    
    
>> >    Should the Government be allowed to prohibit public nudity from The
>> >    Commons in Boston?????
    
>>    Yes.
    
    You are now advodcating the government should impose a moral standard
    which you believe in, enen though it is a clear violation of FREEDOM
    OF SPEECH and EXPRESSION.
    
    Your turn. 8*) 8* 8*)    

Re .185:

db, you're *still* being fuzzy. You're dwelling on inappropriate analogies
instead of the issue at hand. "Free health care" opens the door for questions
on the meaning of "free." That has *nada* to do with the current issue. About the
fifth time around a useless "tastes great<->less filling" debate, I tend to
lose interest.

The issue is (oversimplifying) pretty much: "Does classification (with respect to
mature content) of an artistic expression meant for commercial sale represent
violation of an artist's right to free speech?" To which I say no. The public
(which is you, me, and our fellow citizens) has an irrevocable right and
responsibility to regulate commerce between ourselves. If this type of
classification is so repugnant to the first amendment, why has the ACLU not
brought suit against existing laws which regulate the sale of certain materials
to minors?

Iff that issue can be resolved, the related question of how such classification
could best be implemented becomes germane. Until that time it is moot.

Analogy can be useful or simply a distraction for quibbling. In this case, I
don't see how it helps. I "left the table" because the noters at large seemed
bent on discussing issues I felt were either irrelevant or obvious, and equally
bent on ignoring what I felt to be the vital principles involved. I saw it more
as "bowing to the will of the majority," as regards the notes community. I've
reentered because the furor fueling what I saw as uninteresting, static-full
discussions seems to have died down, and I thought *my* perspective might now
have a chance for reconsideration. (I still may be limiting my involvement
because of personal time constraints.)

Bob

    re: .189
    
    > "Free health care" opens the door for questions on the meaning of
    > "free." 
    
    I think "classification" opens the door for questions of censorship.
    
    I mean what is "classification"?
    
    > The issue is (oversimplifying) pretty much: "Does classification (with
    > respect to mature content) of an artistic expression meant for
    > commercial sale represent violation of an artist's right to free
    > speech?" To which I say no. 
    
    If I wrote a book advocating violent revolution in America, and
    the government FORCED me to put a label on it "classifying" it
    in some way with negative connotations, you would feel that there
    is no violation of "Freedom of Speech".
    
    See, you and Mike are saying "but the purpose is not..." and we say
    "yes, but the effect is...".
    
    Whether or not someone's rights are violate is not a function of
    whether they were violated intentionally.
    
    That, by the way, is why I find the distinction Mike makes regarding
    "Labelling is for children" irrelevant.
    

Re .190:

>    If I wrote a book advocating violent revolution in America, and
>    the government FORCED me to put a label on it "classifying" it
>    in some way with negative connotations, you would feel that there
>    is no violation of "Freedom of Speech".

db-

Again, the analogy does NOT hold, but at least the reason why is crystal clear:
you keep insisting on associating classification with judgement in general, and
negativite judgements in particular.

I haven't seen any note advocating *judgement* of artistic material in positive
or negative terms. Classification of something's content as to
age-appropriateness, at least as I see it, has no connotation of positive or
negative about it. Many major artistic works- as well as a lot of pure crap-
address subject matter which is agreed, by most, to be inappropriate for young
children. However, judgement of artistic merit (or its lack) is not the issue
here. The issue *is* classification as to the nature of a work's subject matter
with respect to age-appropriateness.

Kantian ethics suggest the goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" as
a decent measure of "rightness." In this case I see virtually no harm being
done via the action I've suggested, and a lot of benefit for purchasers/parents
who would appreciate a hint as to the nature of a record/CD/cassette/video. As I
said before, any parent who chooses could ignore useless classifications. (Note
that I could fall into that class of parent myself, if the principle I'm
advocating were implemented poorly.)

Bob

    re: .191 (Ashforth)
    
> Again, the analogy does NOT hold, but at least the reason why is crystal clear:
> you keep insisting on associating classification with judgement in general, and
> negativite judgements in particular.
    
    Bob, I think the difference here is that is see this "classification"
    vs. "judgement" differentiation that you make as a purely arbitrary
    thing borne of convenience to the argument.
    
    And also as I said, I think that even if I granted you that difference,
    you would still be of emphasizing the purpose ("classification") at
    the expense of the effect (stigmatization).
    
    > Kantian ethics suggest the goal of "the greatest good for the greatest
    > number" as a decent measure of "rightness." 
    
    That would also justify "the tyranny of the majority" as "right".
    
    > In this case I see virtually no harm being done via the action I've
    > suggested, and a lot of benefit for purchasers/parents who would
    > appreciate a hint as to the nature of a record/CD/cassette/video. 
    
    "Virtually" no harm.
    
    OK, what harm do you see because chance are we disagree on the
    significance of it.
    
    	db

    The problem is that once a line is drawn - THIS is okay, THAT is not,
    label it, keep it under the counter, that people start playing tug of
    war with WHERE the line IS, I want it THERE, you want it HERE.. all of
    which ignores the fact that we wouldn't be tussling if someone didn't
    scratch the line on the ground in the first place.
    
    karl

Re .192:

>    Bob, I think the difference here is that is see this "classification"
>    vs. "judgement" differentiation that you make as a purely arbitrary
>    thing borne of convenience to the argument.

That's a fairly pretentious thing to say- what grounds can you possibly have for
making such a statement? I am often guilty of various human weaknesses, but
intellectual dishonesty is *not* one of them.

I think it's self-evident that characterizing something as I've indicated says
*nothing* about its worth, positive or negative. I don't see how such a
classification *could* be construed as either. If you *do*, then I think we have
a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of the phrase I offered as an
example of a neutral label.

I think it would be fairly simple for any of us to come up with one example of a
work for "mature" audiences which we think is a timeless contribution to human
knowledge, and another which we regard as a waste of the planetary resources
consumed to reproduce it. How much more neutral can you get?

>    That would also justify "the tyranny of the majority" as "right".

The principle of democracy requires that each of us behave in a way that we
believe is in the best interests of all. The summation of our judgements has a
better chance of being "correct" than any one of us does. That's the rationale
for bringing up this point WRT this issue. There would be a "tyranny of the
majority" *if* we were discussing making a judgement as to a work's merits, but
not WRT classification of a work. As I've stated, any individual is *free* to
ignore the classification if they deem it useless.

>    "Virtually" no harm.
>    
>    OK, what harm do you see because chance are we disagree on the
>    significance of it.

Losing space to a character string on the outside of the "work for sale" is the
only harm I see.


db: I'll probably depart this discussion more quickly than I did the last.
I have no need to convince you personally of my beliefs, and it appears fairly
certain (to me, anyway) that you've made your mind up on how this issue should
be viewed. I get interested in attempts to reach consensus and exchange differing
perspectives, but I could care less about debating contests. (And no, to me this
is not an arbitrary distinction!)

You're fairly consistent in favoring individual liberties to a degree which
(IMHO) actually allows individuals to impose their own public actions on others.
I differ from your position, obviously. No problem there that I can see...

Bob

>> >    Should the Government be allowed to prohibit public nudity from The
>> >    Commons in Boston?????
    
>>    Yes.
    
>    You are now advodcating the government should impose a moral standard
>    which you believe in, enen though it is a clear violation of FREEDOM
>    OF SPEECH and EXPRESSION.
    
    OK, that's what I thought you were getting at.
    
    The difference here is that people running around nude in Boston
    Commons are actually VIOLATING other people's rights: The Supreme Court
    has ruled that a community has the right to impose "community
    standards" in public areas.  
    
    So the difference is that in the case of nudity, there are two rights
    in conflict.  Selling racy rock records to children does not violate
    anyone's rights.  Restricting such sales violates rights without
    preserving others.
    
    You have the right to expect community standards to be enforced in
    public.  You do NOT have the right to expect record to enforce community
    standards (by not selling to children).
    
    	db

    > That's a fairly pretentious thing to say- what grounds can you possibly
    > have for making such a statement? I am often guilty of various human
    > weaknesses, but intellectual dishonesty is *not* one of them.
    
    First and foremost, I apologize for suggesting that it was intentional
    dishonesty.
    
    However, I think it is human weakness.  It comes back to the one point
    of my note which you did NOT respond to:
    
    >> And also as I said, I think that even if I granted you that difference,
    >> you would still be of emphasizing the purpose ("classification") at
    >> the expense of the effect (stigmatization).
    
    > As I've stated, any individual is *free* to ignore the classification if 
    > they deem it useless.
    
    And people during the McCarthy era were free to ignore the
    classification of "communist sympathizer".   Again, you're focusing on
    the purpose at the expense of the effect.

    > I'll probably depart this discussion more quickly than I did the last.
    > I have no need to convince you personally of my beliefs, and it
    > appears fairly certain (to me, anyway) that you've made your mind up on
    > how this issue should be viewed. 
    
    Now THAT is a pretentious statement if the claim is that I've made up
    mind while also claiming that you have not!!!!!!!
    
    I have consistently provided you with reasons why I disagree with you
    even if you can't possibly imagine that anyone would find those reasons
    justifiable and still hold my position.
    
    When, like you, I am no longer willing to listen to your arguments
    and respond WHY I disagree, THEN you may have cause to acuse me of
    having made up my mind.
    
    > I have no need to convince you personally of my beliefs
    
    I also have no need to convince you either.  That was never my goal.
    
    I regret that understanding the opposing beliefs (my goal) is not of
    sufficient interest to you to continue.

Re .196: (db)

>    However, I think it is human weakness.  It comes back to the one point
>    of my note which you did NOT respond to:
    
    >> And also as I said, I think that even if I granted you that difference,
    >> you would still be of emphasizing the purpose ("classification") at
    >> the expense of the effect (stigmatization).
    
    > As I've stated, any individual is *free* to ignore the classification if 
    > they deem it useless.

If'n y'all can wade past the ream of shift operators (">"), maybe my reply will
be understandable. I'll speak v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. (Naw, can't handle it!!)

I did address your point, db- you don't seem to get it: (oops, wrong note...)

I simply don't see any stigma involved here. Period. Calling something
"appropriate for mature audiences" simply means that adult concepts are involved
which *may* not be suitable for young persons (letting each parent decide). As I
indicated, this applies to both classic works of art and useless garbage- how
can this *POSSIBLY* be a negative stigma???

It's nice of you to forgive me the weakness which you ascribe to me. Really.
Gotta say, though, this is simply what I believe to be true. I don't have the
doublethink capacity required to attempt to defend positions on the basis of
ego attachment.

Bob

Hmm. Some notes collision.

Re .197:

db, I've not attacked you or your position in any way. As I said, though I
disagree with it, it is consistent. In comparison, you have (also consistently)
claimed that my position (as well as Mike Diamond's) are somehow invalid and/or
inconsistent. That's the basis for the statement which appears to have ired you
so.

I *can* understand your position and yet disagree with it. I find no particular
joy, though, in repeated rephrasings of the same point over in response to
allegations that it somehow doesn't hold together. That's the basis for saying
that I won't be staying long. It's simply a matter of fun/no-fun, doncha know.

As far as I'm concerned, we're all entitled to opinions, and it's a durned
good thing, too. Sorry if you're upset, and hope you can understand my basis
for stating what I have.

Bob

    re: .199 (Ashforth)
    
    The only thing I'm "upset" with is that despite all my best efforts
    to fully respond to your questions, you see me as close-minded.
    
    By the way, the reason I did not "get it" was because we (you or I, and
    obviously I think it's "you") have a misunderstanding about what it is
    to "stigmatize" something.
    
    How something is "stigmatized" by a label is not simply a function of
    what the label says or what it "simply means".
    
    It is how people react to it.
    
    Again, the concern is not with the intention (what was "meant") but
    with the effect. 

    Re : y'all
    
    Been a few words flyin' back and forth here, eh?  Just to throw my 2
    cents in . . .
    
    	I see the basic problem with labelling certain albums 'mature
    listeners only' as the fact that ONLY those albums get little Black and
    white stickers on 'em.  I'm surprised that no one has brought up, what
    I think, is the best analogy of the situation - the Motion Picture
    Association rating system.  Every movie they review gets a rating, not
    just the ones they don't think the lil 'un's should see.  If whoever
    slaps the stickers on decides that 'Scraping Foetus off the Wheel' is
    to revolting for tender ears, it would get a 'Mature' one.  Raffi's
    latest gets a 'Really Young Folk' one.
    	Someone spoke of the domino effect earlier, and dismissed it,
    pretty much out of hand.  We have a rating system for motion pictures. 
    We're having the birthing pains of one for commercial audio recordings. 
    When will books start getting the stickers on 'em?  Clothing?-Warning,
    these lacy underthings may give you impure thoughts, and cause your
    child numerous complexes.  Wash seperately in very cold water and feel
    guilty for buying them in the first place.  -just kiddin', by the way.
    	Naturally no one likes anyone impinging on what they think are
    their rights.  If I felt the urge to parade around Boston Common in
    only my paisley socks, I'd be outraged to find it was illegal.  The
    fact is 'tyranny by majority' makes sense, in a weird way - you can't
    please everyone, but it's better to make as many people as you can
    happy.  What I have a HUGE problem with is the when the 'Moral
    Majority' ( a minority, in fact ) thinks it's their right, their
    mission in life to impose their views on everyone.  
    	If they want to tell me I'm going to hell in a handbasket for my
    evil ways just because I have a beer or have premarital sex - fine.  I
    don't have to listen to them.  There are plenty of people who'll tell
    be that because there's too much saturated fat in my diet.
    	So what am I saying??  Nothing, really - just that I don't think
    there are any real answers to anything, and that while searching for
    them may seem entertaining ( this note, fer instance ) - DON'T expect
    to find THE ANSWER, because there will always be someone who thinks
    you're wrong.
    >SET TALK/END_BABBLE
     				-Jimbo

Re .200 (db):

db- you've consistently used "stigmatized," as I read it, in its most common
meaning as "differentiated from its peers in a *negative* way." I can't "prove"
the nuance of a word, but to me your usage seemed fairly clear. 

Re .201:

Jimbo- in .201 (see, Jimbo, you *were* making sense, IMHO!) you make a good
observation that "label vs. nolabel" is a possibly invalid differentiation to
make- though I still hold that no negative connotation is involved, only a
disparity in treatment of different works (i.e., overhead involved in
classifying and labeling a work.). To be fair, "G" works should also have a label
as such.

BTW, I do defend my dismissal of the domino theory, but I don't think I dismissed
it "out of hand." As I said, the Washington law show clearly that a new law can
positively *leap* into territory previously uncharted. And as I also said, by
subscribing to this theory, one really (IMHO) expresses the belief that *nothing*
can be done in moderation, with a sense of judgement. An analogous position, as
I see it, is that of the NRA with respect to gun control. (Which I would expect
db to firmly oppose- right, db?) We've gotta do what we think is right, trusting
that we are not thus bound to go further than we think *is* right. We're *not*
animals and totally without reason, are we?

Re both:

Example of two audio works which I think should be classified as appropriate for
mature audiences:

	- whatever rap album contained the quotes from Musician cited in .185.
	  (No, I don't feel compelled to look up the reference. So sue me.)

	- A soundtrack to the Sartre play "No Exit," which is a *hot* snapshot
	  of three individuals trapped in a single room together for eternity
	  as their own personal "Hell."

In both cases, I don't believe the concepts involved are appropriate for young
children. While I personally find the value of the second *vastly* exceeds that
of the first, that has nothing to do with my opinion that either could be
inappropriate for many young people's ears. I also don't see any stigma involved
in labeling both works to that effect.

(Are we having fun again?)

Bob

>(Are we having fun again?)

We are having a wonderful time imagining the second grade at a performance
of Sartre's "No Exit"!

    re: .202 (Ashforth)
    
    > db- you've consistently used "stigmatized," as I read it, in its most
    > common meaning as "differentiated from its peers in a *negative* way."
    > I can't "prove" the nuance of a word, but to me your usage seemed
    > fairly clear.
    
    That is EXACTLY how I meant it.
    
    But you are limiting that to mean directly and purposefully
    stigmatized in a negative way.
    
    It doesn't matter to me what the labels say.  What matters is how
    people interpret and react to them.
    
    Bob, it just doesn't make things any different for me if "you" didn't
    intend to violate my rights.  All I care about is whether "your" actions
    caused my rights to be violated.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    A new old slant:
    
    And to make matters worse, all this is unnecessary if the only goal is
    to provide information.  If the PMRC wants to rate records they are
    free to do that just as critics are to critique movies.  If parents
    want to find the PMRC rating, they are free to do that.  
    
    Just don't force the artist to do it.
    
    Thus even if I buy EVERYTHING you've said, I still see no justification
    for doing it.  The goal can be accomplished in other less
    controversial ways
    
    Thus EVEN if there WERE no freedom of speech issue, there would still
    be a free market issue.  Why have regulation when the goal can be
    accomplished without regulation?
    
    	db

>    But you are limiting that to mean directly and purposefully
>    stigmatized in a negative way.
    
No, I'm not. I stated fairly clearly that I don't see *how* labelling of the sort
I proposed can be *interpreted* in a negative way, regardless of intent or
purpose. You are choosing to say that any labelling carries an automatic negative
stigma as unavoidable baggage, whether or not intended, and I just don't buy
that. I've also given what I think is a clear example which I think illustrates
my point. I'm not trying to press for agreement, just to communicate what I mean.

>    Bob, it just doesn't make things any different for me if "you" didn't
>    intend to violate my rights.  All I care about is whether "your" actions
>    caused my rights to be violated.

See above. I haven't based anything at all on intent (or lack thereof) to
violate anyone's rights. I'm stating that labelling of the sort I've proposed
would violate noone's rights, but merely provide information of a strictly
advisory nature, with no judgement as to artistic merit implied. If you *still*
feel that labelling of *any* sort carries an inevitable negative connotation,
then we simply, but definitely, disagree.

>    Thus EVEN if there WERE no freedom of speech issue, there would still
>    be a free market issue.  Why have regulation when the goal can be
>    accomplished without regulation?

As I stated before, all I was focusing on was the validity of a principle- i.e.,
that informational labeling is not a violation of anyone's rights, nor an
implicit indication of a work's artistic merits. I think you're correct in
separating the issue of what might be the best *approach* to providing such
information; I believe that's far more of a matter of personal opinion than the
validity off the principle involved.

I personally believe that self-regulation of any industry is both healthier and
more effective than government-mandated or -supervised regulation. My personal
take on this is that if record companies wish to make big bucks on material
which raises questions concerning the appropriate age of its audience, the onus
should be on said companies to show some social responsibility and provide the
information voluntarily. That would, IMHO, defuse the issue, take the initiative
away from groups who *would* prefer to label music as "morally subversive," and
remove any pressure on elected representatives to involve government. One of
government's valid functions, though, is regulation of commerce, and I don't
think government regulation of such things is unconstitutional- simply
inadvisable. A noter in this topic long ago pointed out the distinction between
freedom to create art and freedom to *sell* said art. Good point, IMHO.

As I said, though, I think that a debate over the "best" way to provide
information of this sort is *wide* open, too much so to even approach in a forum
such as this. I don't mean to cop out of anything, this is just my own point of
view.

Bob

    re: .205 (Ashforth)
    
    > No, I'm not. I stated fairly clearly that I don't see *how* labelling
    > of the sort I proposed can be *interpreted* in a negative way,
    > regardless of intent or purpose. 
    
    Bob, the pro-labellers refer the material in question as "pornography"
    in almost every form of communication EXCEPT the label itself.
    
    Perhaps we're hung up semantics.  I noticed you emphasized the word
    "interpreted".
    
    Do you think that labelling can cause an "association" with a
    negative stigma, let's say "pornography" for example?
    
    > You are choosing to say that any labelling carries an automatic
    > negative stigma as unavoidable baggage, whether or not intended, and I
    > just don't buy that. 
    
    Not really "automatic" in that not everyone interprets it with the
    negative stigma. 
    
    I tell you one thing, I certainly do believe that the labelling will
    cause people to "automatically" accept the governments conclusions
    about the appropriateness of the material instead of taking the time
    to come to their own.
    
    That certainly seems to put the artist's interests at the mercy  of the
    government.  Perhaps you've "proven" to yourself that the government
    CAN act in moderation, but I see little reason to trust that it WILL in
    this case.  Examples: Judas Priest trial, 2 Live Crew incident, and the
    stated goals and relative success/support of one Rev. Wildmon.
    
    I recognize the rights and need for parents to sometimes rely on
    external review on making purchases.  I just don't think the government
    should be in the "review" business when it comes to art. 

db-

I've tried very hard to distinguish the principle I'm talking about from the law
which began this note. I'm not one of the "pro-labellers." I'm just me. I'm
referring to nothing as pornography. I said clearly that I also do not think the
government is the "best" implementer of a rating system, although I feel that it
is not anything which is constitutionally inappropriate. I'm simply stating
that judgement-neutral labelling does not violate the principle of artistic
freedom.

Bear in mind that I'm discussing basic principles here, WRT to a fairly
specific form of labelling which, to the best of my knowledge, has NOT been
proposed anywhere as a law, guideline, or whatever. I don't happen to agree
with the viewpoint of the PMRC (if that's the correct acronym- I haven't paid
it much attention). As I stated long ago, the law which started this is so
obviously flawed that it's just plain not interesting to talk about.

The term "pornography" is blatantly judgemental- it's obviously not a neutral
label such as I am proposing. If such a labeling system were implemented as
advisory, I would ignore it. If it were mandatory, I would fight it, possibly
to the point of civil disobedience. HOWEVER, that's not what I'm suggesting
at all.

If I describe a given work (book, movie, painting, record, whatever) as something
which may be inappropriate for young children, am I describing a porn movie?
James Joyce's Ulysses? Playboy? A rap record? Tne recording of "No Exit" which I
cited? If one uses a negative term (such as pornography, or morally subversive),
then yes, one has created a negative "stigma" with such a label. If one uses
instead a categorization of subject matter (such as "Contains adult subject
matter," or perhaps "American History"), one has provided neutral information.
If you interpret this kind of label as a negative stigma, library classification
systems must *really* tick you off!

Bob

    First. I'm not saying YOU specifically have associated the label with
    pornography.  
    
    > If one uses a negative term (such as pornography, or morally
    > subversive), then yes, one has created a negative "stigma" with such a
    > label. If one uses instead a categorization of subject matter (such as
    > "Contains adult subject matter," or perhaps "American History"), one
    > has provided neutral information. 
    
    But c'mon Bob, if you say:
    
    	"I'm gonna put labels that say 'FOO' on this filthy pornography"
    
    Have you not associated anything you put that label on with "filthy
    pornography" REGARDLESS of what the label says?
    
    > I don't happen to agree with the viewpoint of the PMRC (if that's the
    > correct acronym- I haven't paid it much attention). 
    
    Perhaps that is why you can say "Nah, that domino theory won't happen
    here".  It already is!  (See .0).

    I'd like to get back to a question that has been raised a number of
    times, but to which I have not yet seen any response.
    
    If the goal of the "labellings" is to aid parents in determining
    whether their children are listening to "age-appropriate" material,
    then why doesn't any organization taht wants to (such as the PRMC) 
    just provide a rating service hotline, and leave it at that?  
    
    Why should the government need to be involved, or industry be forced 
    to come up with some rating/labelling scheme?
    
    This way the labelling would be done according to the morals of the
    labelling group, and people would subscribe to or consult with a hotline
    that rated things according to criteria they agreed with.  This is free
    enterprise as it supposed to be.  No one's rights get trampled,
    everyone gets the information they want/need, end of story.  If there
    is a market, let it be filled.
    
    The stated goal would be accomplished to everyone's satisfaction - *if*
    the stated goal is indeed the intent of the "labelling" efforts.
    
    - Dave

db-

You just don't get it. *You* infer the negativity by association by considering
that I'm talking about labels going on something characterized a priori as
pornography. What more can I say? I'm just plain not talking about any such
term or label. I think you'd much rather talk about judgemental labels, to
which your replies seem more aptly targeted.

I am not saying what you keep repeating. Period. I am saying that some issues
are not appropriate for young people, whether they're part of an important
contribution to humanity or "pornography." Saying so with a label leaves the
judgement to each individual. We've been 'round this tree a lot of times, and
I'm dizzy.

Regarding the domnino theory, that purports to say that any step in a given
direction is the first in what will definitely be more to follow. As I have said
*more* than once, the appearance of a law as described in .0 is a clear
counterexample: with no precursor whatsoever, it takes a precipitous leap into
disgusting territory. Does this mean that Washington is doomed to take even
more drastic measures? I say it proves that mistakes and wise actions can occur
independently of each other, often even sequentially. I see .0 as a support to
that opinion, not a rebuttal of it.

Bob

    re: .210
    
    > You just don't get it. *You* infer the negativity by association by
    > considering that I'm talking about labels going on something
    > characterized a priori as pornography. 
    
    Sigh.... NO!  I am not!
    
    > I'm just plain not talking about any such term or label. 
    
    That makes two of us.
    
    > I think you'd much rather talk about judgemental labels, to which your
    > replies seem more aptly targeted.
    
    Do you remember me saying "it does not matter what the labels says"?
    
    That means it doesn't matter if what the labels says is "judgemental"
    or not.   My comments apply fully, nay "specifically" to the VERY
    example you give (and thus the kind of labels I presume you are talking
    about:  Labels that say, "Adult Content".
    
    If you say:
    
    	"I'm gonna put labels that say 'Adult Content' on this filthy
    	 pornography"
    
    Have you not associated anything you put that label on with "filthy
    pornography" REGARDLESS of what the label says?  
    
    Do you not think that people will see the label on the album and say,
    "this must be some of that filthy rock stuff I've heard about."

    Part II
    
    > Saying so with a label leaves the judgement to each individual.
    
    The judgement IS indeed left to the individual, but is not the label's
    very purpose to give the individual the option of not having to make
    the judgement himself?
    
    > As I have said *more* than once, the appearance of a law as described
    > in .0 is a clear counterexample: with no precursor whatsoever, it takes
    > a precipitous leap into disgusting territory. Does this mean that
    > Washington is doomed to take even more drastic measures? I say it
    > proves that mistakes and wise actions can occur independently of each
    > other, often even sequentially. I see .0 as a support to that opinion,
    > not a rebuttal of it.
    
    I think it proves that there are people out there who are quite willing
    to commit such "disgusting" things and that it is imperative that we
    not give them a powerful tool with which to accomplish it.
    
    And because the ratings are entirely subjective there is nothing other
    than your undying faith in the decency of such people to prevent them
    from screwing artists by giving them unfair ratings.
    
    Hey, I've got Monkees albums that I'd be hard pressed to deny contained
    "adult content". 
    
    I would be more inclined to take the leap of faith if there was no
    reason to believe the labels would be used as a tool for disgusting
    acts such as .0.  But there *IS* plenty of such evidence:
    
    	.0 is disgusting (glad we agree)
    
    	The arrest of the florida record store owner (not for selling
    		to children) was disgusting
    
    	The arrest of 2 Live Crew was disgusting
    
    	The trial of Judas Priest was disgusting
    
    Now I know you are arguing on principle.  
    
    Yes, we shouldn't dismiss labelling purely on the basis of what
    it could possibly, concievably be used for.  Let's evaluate such
    laws in the context of what we think will happen given prevailing
    attitudes, current events, etc.
    
    I'm doing that.  If you have no fear that labelling will be used
    in disgusting ways, I have to think that you are not.

    You quit because you feel I am unconvincable (or at "too great a
    cost").   
    
    While I feel the same way about you, I continue.
    
    What does that tell us about which one of us seeks only "victory"?

Re .214:

db-

I've said before, I have not been trying to convince anyone of anything. As I've
also said before, I have no interest in debate, only in attempts to jointly
explore all aspects of and perspectives on an issue. In the latter, there's no
inherent sense of competition, but rather one of cooperation.

I've been trying to explain- repeatedly- why I think a specific principle is
valid. If you were disagreeing with my position, but portraying it accurately,
I'd consider resolution to have been reached.

However, communication is simply not occurring. As a result, you're disagreeing
with something I'm not stating. I've rephrased countless times, as explicitly as
possible, to no apparent effect. Given the situation, I just don't think that
anything is being accomplished, with the possible exception of boring the rest
of MUSIC's noters to tears. If you disagree, I'm sorry. If you wish to claim
some sort of superiority because you want to continue what seems to me a
pointless discussion, sure, no problem; that won't goad me into participating,
though.

If you wish to communicate privately via E-mail to the point that you *do*
understand what I'm saying, fine. I just think it's irresponsible to clutter the
notesfile further with something which doesn't seem to me to be of use or
interest to the notes community.

Bob

    > As a result, you're disagreeing with something I'm not stating. 	
    
    	Bob:  I'm just plain not talking about any such term or label.
    
    	Dave: That makes two of us.
    
    I think this suggests that I may "know" what you are stating.
    
    It clearly establishes that you do NOT know "what I think you are
    stating."
    
    Feel free to convince me otherwise, via mail if you prefer that.

    
    Well, if you think that i think that you think that . . .
    
    Hell, guys - don't take it private, It's interesting AND entertaining
    to watch two intelligent people disagree and run circles around each
    other!
    					-Jimbo
    

Well, Jimbo- if you really feel that way. I'm serious about not wanting to
put a lot of static into the electronic version of the public "ether." If there's
an interested but silent audience, then I'll give it another try.

db:

As explicitly as I can put it, this is where you are completely misstating my
position:

>    If you say:
>    
>    	"I'm gonna put labels that say 'Adult Content' on this filthy
>    	 pornography"
>  

Why do keep on saying this? I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I am
talking about a "judgement-neutral" label which would appear on *any and all*
works which involve "adult" content. I've *never* used either the term
"pornography," nor any other term with derogatory connotations, to refer to the
criteria used to classify any works for sale. Nor shall I. The point is that
information which describes strictly the type of subject matter of such works
says nothing, good or bad, about them.

Sure, *if* I was saying that a label would appear *only* on works which had
been judged (by who?) as "filthy pornography," it wouldn't matter if the label
said "Filthy Pornography" or "Kosher," the effect would be one of placing a value
judgement- a negative one- on the work. Every time I point out that this is *not*
what I'm proposing, you come back to this statement. Why? This is what I meant
when I said you don't get it, whether or not you felt you did. I am not proposing
selective labeling, which is what all your replies address.

Try this: You have before you five items in brown paper, two with "advisory"
labels on them. I've told you in advance that one of the "plain" items is not
worth the time taken to listen to it, IMHO, one of the labeled items I find
personally offensive, and one of the labeled items I regard as a "must listen,"
without which your life experience would be vastly lacking. How has the presence
of a non-judgemental label stigmatized anything? If Jimbo's point is absorbed
(which I think is a good idea) into the concept, all five would have labels,
similar to the current movie rating system.

I don't know how I could make this point any more clearly. Really. I've tried
every way of saying this I can think of. If this doesn't get my meaning across,
I would really prefer to leave this issue one step back from "agreeing to
disagree," since one can't agree *or* disagree with a position one has not
understood. This is why I suggested we abandon this thread, and why I still may;
I'd say we've about hit the nadir of diminishing returns.

Bob

The phrase '"judgement-neutral" label' is internally inconsistent and does not
parse.

Re .219:

I think I understand your point. I'm treating "judgement" as placing a value of
"goodness" or "badness" on something, as opposed to "classification," which I
regard as a "judgement-neutral" sorting according to objective criteria. That's
why I used the example of a library's classification system.

Putting a book in the "History" section doesn't indicate whether it's a great
history book or a lousy history book- or even a history of "filthy pornoigraphy."
(smirk)

Bob

    Re: the "brown bag" theory...
    
    Personally, I think that if you had the bags in front of most people,
    and said that "this" one containes stuff "not worth bothering about",
    that is the FIRST one to be chosen.
    
    K.C.

K.C.-

Mebbe I didn't get across the point I was trying to make. Which was that with
only the "labels" to go by, one could not tell which one(s) I personally thought
worthless/superlative. I hypothesized the situation wherein I had *privately*
told db of my opinion of the various works to illustrate that as clearly as
possible.

Bob

    re: .222 (Ashforth)
    
    OK, so you think the "Advisory" label is on something "offensive"
    but that's something you related privately.
    
    Why is the "Advisory" label on the record?

Re .223:

(patiently):

The advisory label is on the record because... surprise! it contains material
which may be inappropriate for young persons. Whether or not any person or
persons thinks it's "filthy pornography," "art of major importance," or
whatever other value judgement which might be placed on it. As said before.

This is exactly what is done currently for videotapes and, for that matter,
many television broadcasts. I've seen such a message precede some great (IMHO)
stuff- "I, Claudius," for example- and also before some no-brainer material
which incidentally includes gratuitous sex, violence, or whatever. (I wouldn't
be at all surprised if you disagree with that policy, BTW, nor concerned. I'm
just trying to clarify what I'm talking about so we're both clear on *what*
you're disagreeing with.)

Read .218 again: I am demonstrating that *my* *personal* judgement of whether
something is "offensive" or not has nothing!, nada!, nil!, zero!, zip! to do with
whether or not something addresses issues which *may* be inappropriate for young
persons. The situation I described in .218 illustrates that even if you
personally *know* for a fact that I *do* find something offensive/great in a set
of items distinguished *only* by labels as I've described, it would be
demonstrably impossible for you to determine, by said labels, which are which.
IOW, the classifications "good/bad" and "adult/nonadult" are totally
orthogonal. (Which makes them a pretty bad fit for a square living room,
heh-heh.)

Bob

Bob

    re: 224 (Ashforth)
    
    > Patiently
    
    Thank you.
    
    >> Why is the "Advisory" label on the record?
    
    > The advisory label is on the record because... surprise! it contains material
    > which may be inappropriate for young persons. 
    
    > Read .218 again: I am demonstrating that *my* *personal* judgement of
    > whether something is "offensive" or not has nothing!, nada!, nil!,
    > zero!, zip! to do with whether or not something addresses issues which
    > *may* be inappropriate for young persons. 
    
    Indeed it has "nothing, nada, nil, zip" to do with Bob Ashforth's
    personal judgement that it is "offsensive".
    
    But are you prepared to tell me that it has "nothing, nada, nil, zip"
    to do with a judgement on the part of the LABELLER that it contained
    offensive material?
    
>This is exactly what is done currently for videotapes and, for that matter,
>many television broadcasts. 
    
    It is exactly what is done for TV and video, but TV and video are NOT
    exactly like lyrics now are they?

    By the way, I found the "Hello, hello... testing?" business a bit
    "offensive" as well, but I don't feel compelled to put a label on it.
    
    I'd ask that you "temper" your replies a bit.

db-

I don't care for sideways smiley faces, so they're always implied. Sorry if
my attempts at dry (arid, even) humor don't always come across as such. I've
certainly not baited or disparaged you in any of my replies, nor do I intend to.
I must say, though, I don't really appreciate your frequent comments that
attempt to point out that you're conducting yourself somehow more "appropriately"
than I. Let's just stick to the discussion, eh?

The basis for the type of labelling I'm suggesting is that it be done on
objective criteria. So yes, I can tell you that any such label would have
nothing to do with the personal value judgements of a hypothetical "labeler,"
with the exception, naturally, of human error in accurately applying said
criteria.

And no, lyrics are obviously not exactly like video or TV, but why do they *have*
to be? The principle *is* identical, all that differs is how they *communicate*
their "content;" the classification criteria used to identify the nature of said
content would, IMHO, be quite similar. In this case, I think analogy is useful,
since there's a clear example of something similar to what I'm proposing, which
has raised no furor and caused no disastrous slide into censorship.

Bob

    I'd still be very interested in a response from any of the
    "pro-labelling" folks to my proposal to the "free-enterprise" approach
    in .209.
    
    I don't see why the government needs to be involved at all.
    
    - Dave

Re .228:

Yo Dave-

My response is in there somewhere, albeit buried in a "mass of turgid verbiage."
(That's not mine- give credit to the inestimable Meilir Page-Jones.)

I think the onus should be on the industry to self-regulate. The rationale is
that they're selling something which the consumer cannot judge by examination,
but only after purchase. Providing a reasonable description of the item sold
doesn't seem unreasonable. As I mentioned previously, voluntary self-regulation
also takes a lot of wind out of the sails of extremist groups who *do,*
apparently, favor labeling based (unabashedly) on value judgements.

Hopefully mine's not the only opinion on the topic, though. Methinks we need a
wider perspective...

Bob

    RE: Precedence of tv and radio
    
    I'm not sure the analogy is all you would like it to be.  There are
    some real differences and some real parallels.
    
    A) because the content is broadcast over public airwaves rather than 
       privately purchased/acquired.  This makes a major difference to
       folks like the FCC.  (i.e. There are real differences in the nature
       of the media.)
    
    B) because whether an advisory is issued or not the stations are in 
       real danger of getting their licenses pulled by the FCC.  Not only 
       that but the Reagan administration added a major "chilling effect"
       to the broadcast of adult-oriented materials.  They decreed that 
       not only could stations be prosecuted for broadcasting offensive 
       material even with content advisories, but that the stations were 
       denied any mechanism for prior approval of the material.  Stations 
       could be prosecuted for broadcasting materials deemed offensive 
       after-the-fact.  There were a number of such cases in the mid 1980's, 
       one involving a radio play on Pacifica Radio. (i.e.  Providing
       guidance in determining the age-suitability of the content is not 
       the agenda of many pro-labelling groups.)
    
    - Dave

    
    re .228
    
    I've been one of the PRO-labelers, and if the industry decided to
    regulate themselves, then I'm all for it. If they don't want laws being
    passed like that in Washington, then they may just start labeling
    records on their own. BTW....They were asked to regulate themselves
    a while ago, but refused. Now they may be forced into it.
    
    Mike

Re .229:

Dave, I think we agree. The analogy I made was to TV and *video,* not radio,
but you raise a good distinction, IMHO, between public broadcast and sales
of goods. The analogies which hold, I think, are recordings::videos and
television::radio. As regards labels, it'd be similar to what you see on
video cases. As regards radio, we hadn't really even gotten very much into
that end of things- an audible equivalent of the "may contain" verbiage would
seem appropriate.

I should mention, BTW, that I agree as to the agenda of many "pro-labeling"
groups. I don't agree with any "agenda" I've seen, but I do think there's some
validity to the basic concerns which they're trying- however inappropriately-
to address.

Re .230:

Glad you're back. Can I take a rest now?

(chuckle <--- to remove all doubt)

Bob

181.227 ATIS01::ASHFORTH 
>The basis for the type of labelling I'm suggesting is that it be done on
>objective criteria. 
    
    Labelling based on "Objective criteria" ?  Let's see.. first we
    establish a list of Proscribed Words.  Swear words are obvious.  How
    about slang ?  'suggestive' words ?  Okay, somehow magically we have a
    Proscribed Word List 'PWL'.  Then (someone) enters all lyrics on all 
    albums released in the U.S. - no, let's concentrate on ONE album.  
    So we have a system somewhere set up to run the Proscribed Word List
    against the lyrics of a certain album.  Call then Lyrics Under Test
    'LUT'.  There will or will not be 'hits' or incidences of PWL Occurences
    'PWLO'.  This incidence rate would be run against the LUTWC (Lyric
    Under Test Word Count).  The Proscribed Word List Occurence Ratio 
    'PWLOR' would then be the criteria by which labelling is imposed.  A
    PWLOR of .10 or over would qualify an album for labelling.
    
181.229 ATIS01::ASHFORTH 

>My response is in there somewhere, albeit buried in a "mass of turgid verbiage."

    "Turgid" - swollen, erect.  Proscribed Word Occurence !
    
    karl

    > The basis for the type of labelling I'm suggesting is that it be done
    > on objective criteria.
    
    If you believe this is possible then you should be able to  me 
    an example of this "objective criteria" right?
    
    > I've seen such a message precede some great (IMHO) stuff- "I,
    > Claudius," for example- 
    
    If video labelling applies to music, then rock radio stations should
    insert such warning messages before playing labelled music right?
    
    Also, the movie ratings you are VOLUNTARY. There are MANY American
    made theatrical films in my video store that are UNRATED that would
    probably get at least an R rating.
    
    You ask why we don't object to that:   There is no "freedom of speech"
    issue if the government isn't involved.   We have no basis to object.
    
    I have NO objection to "what you propose" if an artist can put out
    material unsuitable for kids without a label if he so chooses.
    
    Does that come under what you propose?

    re: Moeller & Ashforth
    
    Maybe I can save us all some time.
    
    Bob, I think Karl's point is also the motivation behind my request
    for an example.
    
    While I can remotely imagine that you could define criteria that
    could be objectively APPLIED, I find it hard to imagine that
    the criteria itself would be "objective".
    
    I mean is "what is unsuitable for children" a strictly "objective"
    question?
    
    And while you say it would only be subject to human error, it's hard
    to imagine that would not be subject to interpretational error.
    
    For example, if you banned the word "suck", what "objective" criteria
    could be used to allow a suitable usage from an unsuitable usage?
    
    Or do you regard labelling the suitable usage as not being an "error"?

    RE: .232  (Bob)
    
    -<Agreement on parallels and lack thereof (I think)>-
    
    Confirmed.
    
    I think our remaining differences consist of whether or not ratings
    should be provided in a centralized, government/industry manner or 
    distributed, independent manner (which we stand some chance of coming 
    to consensus, agreement, or compromise on), and a second issue of
    whether there is a reasonably strong correlation between labelling and
    infringement of free speech (which I think we are less likely to agree
    on).
    
    As for the former, I feel the most valuable rating/labelling scheme is
    one provided by different groups with different agendas and where
    labels do not actually appear on the recording itself.  This will provide 
    a very meaningful labelling system in that there will be a high correlation
    between the value systems of label-suppliers and the label-consumers.
    One simply subscribes to a labelling service that one agrees with.
    
    I believe a centralized approach is very flawed.  The MPAA ratings for
    film are an excellent example.  Their value system does not correspond to
    mine.  For instance a film which features a high level of explicit and
    casual brutality will rate an "R" (zillions of examples of this
    situation) or perhaps even a "PG-13", both of which children are free 
    to see, and a film which features uncoerced, non-brutal sexuality (e.g., 
    "Henry and June") will rate an "NC-17", which will bar it from many 
    communities and from being advertised in many newspapers.
    
    I do agree with you that "NC-17" should be a perfectly legitimate
    rating that reflects adult material.  However, the simple branding of a
    film with an "NC-17" will limit its ability to function in the
    marketplace, *simply because of the label*.  If the exact same film
    with no cuts were granted an "R" rather than an "NC-17", it would not
    have been barred from many newspapers and many communities.  It is not
    necessarily the content of the film that causes the film to be
    restricted, but instead simply the label.  There is an instant
    identification in many minds that "NC-17" is really "X" in disguise,
    and we all know that "X" is strictly "filthy pornography".
    
    I'd much rather each individual did their own classification, either
    personally or by gathering information from a personally trusted
    source, be it the PMRC, the Catholic Church, the Communist Party, 
    Screw magazine, or whoever.
    
    - Dave

Re .233:

Hey, karl, I've gotta hand it to you! You're not sarcastic very often, but
when you are, you're good!

In answer to your, ah, comments:

Never said it'd be easy, now, did I? But basically, I think you're focusing at
the wrong level. Meaning is at the level of sentences, as the "expression of a
complete thought," not at the level of words, which mean nothing until strung
together in an attempt to communicate. (Notice use of the word "attempt.") I'll
admit, it *is* a lot more fun to ridicule the "bad word" approach. What zest!

Thus, a more appropriate "list" of objective criteria would be of topics/concepts
considered possibly inappropriate for small kids. Creation of such a list
*would* be difficult, I do believe, but not impossible.

Somehow I have the feeling you won't care for this approach either.

If I tried to extract a single, ah, position from your comments, it would be
"Creation of a completely objective set of criteria is not feasible." Is that
about right?

Bob

    re: .236 WieglebDa
    
    I think we all agree that the approach you describe would be best.
    
    If you want to see some reaction to it, look in old MUSIC.
    
    So actually I think you, Bob and I all agree on how it would best
    be done - I think the only disagreement with Bob is whether or not
    mandatory labelling would violate rights/principles.
    
    Unfortunately that may be significant because the many of the
    pro-labelling side don't also want to do it that way, and advocate
    ways in which these "freedom of speech" issues come up.

    re .237.. Actually, Bob, I'm sarcastic all the time.
    
    >   Meaning is at the level of sentences, as the "expression of a
>complete thought," not at the level of words, which mean nothing until strung
>together in an attempt to communicate. 
    
    Hey, no problemo.. just plug in a context-sensitive rule-based AI 
    software module.  No, wait, rule-based is too rigid.  Uh... how would
    an AI program parse "Shake, shake your Poochy" ?  Or "..me love you long
    time"?
    
    >"Creation of a completely objective set of criteria is not feasible." 
    >Is that about right?
    
    Absolutement.  It's not possible without subjective human involvement. 
    And smut, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  And I don't
    trust anyone volunteering for the position of Music LabelMeister.
    
    karl

    > Thus, a more appropriate "list" of objective criteria would be of
    > topics/concepts considered possibly inappropriate for small kids.
    > Creation of such a list *would* be difficult, I do believe, but not
    > impossible.
    
    Creation of that list would, of necessity, involve MUCH subjectivity.
    Or is "what is inappropriate for small kids" a totally objective
    topic?
    
    But let's ignore that for now.
    
    Do you think the APPLICATION of that list (determining to what extent
    a song broached the topic) is not prone to subjectivity?  
    
    Bob, here's a little bit of a  song, tell me if it should be given an
    advisory:
    
    		I want to kiss her but she won't let me
    		I want to whisper sweet nothings in her ear
    		I want to kiss her behind closed doors 
    
    "Advisory"?  No "Advisory?"

Re last few:

I hope this is clarified to everyone's satisfaction, as I have just undertaken
an additional commitment (beginning this afternoon) which I estimate will
consume more free time than I have available...

While I agree that there are obstacles to creation of a list of objective
criteria, I disagree that it is impossible. As a starting point, I'd propose the
set of criteria which are presently in use for video material- with the
exception, of course, of nudity, which just ain't audible. My personal preference
for who should create such a list, and hopefully administer it, would be a
panel of professional child psychologists, perhaps with admixtures of music
professionals, both artists and record biz types. I don't claim that *anything*
can be accomplished without imperfection, but I think *reasonable* success could
be achieved. (Note that agreeing with this position does not automatically
imply that you think it *should* be done- OK?)

And db- you missed a large point in substituting "is inappropriate" for "may be
inappropriate." The idea is to list the contents, not to tell you whether
they're good for you. Like food labeling: if you don't think artificial color
FD #5 is bad for you, hey, pig out! But the consumer should know it's in
there. This leaves the decision to the purchaser; if the information is not
something *you* consider important, that's not a valid rationale for saying that
someone who *does* consider it important is out of line in wanting it listed.
(And yes, I mean on the package, not obtained with a phone call.)

And yes, despite its unpopularity, I think that making such labelling mandatory
would *not* be any violation of free speech. I've given the rationale(s) in many
past notes. FWIW, though, I think this discussion will remain in the realm of
the hypothetical. It's been difficult enough in this fairly enlightened and
intelligent forum to keep things from becoming extremist; I'd be very skeptical
about *any* attempt to promulgate anything like this idea without it rapidly
devolving into a typical "us-them," "good-bad," "left-right," Armageddon. Seems
the way of the modern media-hip world.

Sigh, double-sigh, etcetera- but that's life.

Anyway, carry on, folks- see you in mebbe three-four weeks...

Bob

    re: .242 (Ashforth)
    
    > The idea is to list the contents, not to tell you whether they're good
    > for you. Like food labeling: if you don't think artificial color FD #5
    > is bad for you, hey, pig out! 
    
    Well, you see, I personally think the comparison of music to food is
    inappropriate.
    
    It can be objectively determined whether or not there is artificial
    color FD #5.     Unfortunately, it can NOT be objectively determined
    whether or not (and to what degree) a lyric deals with a topic.
    
    No doubt, Huey Lewis's "I Want a New Drug" would be labelled as
    promoting drugs.
    
    No doubt the song that I asked you to rate a few notes ago would not,
    even though I suspect you have no idea what it's about.
    
    You acknowledge that rating records objectively would be "difficult"
    but the most you can say to convince us that it can be done is on
    the order of "trust me".
    
    With people like Tipper Gore and Rev. Wildmon, and all the various
    rating luminaries (that you are by your own confesion not familiar
    with), and with incidents like 2 Live Crew and Judas Priest, most
    of us are not prepared to stick the necks of musicians thru the noose
    and hand the rope to someone who says "trust me".
    
    > And yes, despite its unpopularity, I think that making such labelling
    > mandatory would *not* be any violation of free speech. I've given the
    > rationale(s) in many past notes. 
    
    And the short addressement of that "rationale" is that so long as you
    use "non-judgemental" terms, you can justify labelling anything and it
    either ignores the stigmatic effect of the mere presence of the label.
    
    Completely aside from how that "rationale" is applied to record labels,
    I find it an extremely dangerous line of reasoning.
    
    My book on revolution could be given the label "Advisory: Promotes
    overthrow of government" which would be absolutely true, and totally
    non-judgemental.
    
    Would you want the government putting even non-judgemental labels
    on political works?
    
    In fact, come to think of it, does not the word "advisory" (your own
    word btw) carry a stigmatism.   Does it not imply that there is
    something potentially dangerous about the material?

    
    For videos, there is a stigma for ones that HAVEN'T been rated/labelled
    - even those are listed 'Unrated' on the sleeve.  Caveat emptor, I
    suppose.  Myself, I would rent the unrated versions, just to see what
    was so diabolical that it had to be left out of the original.  
    
    If labelling becomes widespread and/or mandatory, does that mean
    they'll come out with 'clean' versions of potential lewd/unacceptable
    songs?  Body Count's new album, editted for a children's label = 1
    minute, 40 seconds.
    
    The problem, as always, is WHO judges the content?  And who judges the
    JUDGES, for that matter??  What's obscene, what's too violent or
    explict for kids, what isn't?  Where does the line get drawn??  No
    perfect answer, no easy answer and not a job I myself would want to
    undertake.  Personally, I think all kids are going to have to deal with
    life eventually, but I wouldn't want to discuss the moral implications
    of brutal sadism and/or ruthless killing of bad guys with a four year
    old.  
    
    			Jimbo
    

    Well there's arguments that go both ways: 
    
    One says that if the labels will cause people to tame the stuff down.
    And certainly we've seen that with movies - almost all of those "uncut"
    movies you see in the video store are the original versions of movies
    that the producers expected to get an "R" rating, but got an "X" rating
    and had to be cut and resubmitted.
    
    The other argument sayas that the labels will cause artists to put more
    "unsuitable" (Bob's word for lack of any other) material in because
    the kids won't by something that says "your parents would approve of
    this".   
    
    There is also some evidence to support this, not as much as the
    opposite.  In the movie business, the PG rating for an adult movie
    is known as "the kiss of death".   I've not heard of people ADDING
    material after getting a PG rating, but I've heard of producers
    actually doing things to make sure it got an "R" rating.
    
    As a matter of fact, even "your mom would love him" Donnie Osmond,
    someone whose very familiar with the "your parents would approve"
    stigma, has said that he would take steps to make sure his albums GOT a
    label.
    
    Would be labellers should observe two things:
    
    1) There are two likely effects: the worse stuff may get tamer, but
       the "suitable" stuff would get unsuitable.
    
       I.E. more stuff would fall into the unsuitable category
    
    2) These labels WILL influence the artists. 
    
       Many of us consider THAT to be an obscenity.
    
    
    > What's obscene, too violent or explicit for kids, what isn't?
    
    The QUESTION(S) are inherently subjective! 
    
    That's why I am at a loss to understand how Bob Ashforth thinks they
    can be answered using "objective criteria".
    

Well, this will be final note before departing DEC for the foreseeable future.
My last hiatus was caused by the need (to satisfy an urgent need of an old
client) to temporarily work two contracts which totaled more than a fulltime
commitment; this one is caused by a sudden rule change which, to be brief,
forces me to decline the new contract DEC and I were about to consummate. Sigh...
such is life.

Anyway, this will be my final reply in this notesfile, so I figured I'd say
bye at the same time.

To be brief:

db, you argue the assumption that labels are intended to be used (or will end
up being used) to influence the nature of published material. I don't agree;
again, the intent (and, I believe, the use despite the intent) is simply to
note that the material *may* (you continue to leave out that word!) be unsuitable
for small children.

    
>    > What's obscene, too violent or explicit for kids, what isn't?
    
>    The QUESTION(S) are inherently subjective!

Yes, making a final judgement is up to each parent. However, I think it *is*
possible to predict with some objectivity and success what is explicit enough to
communicate to parents tht they may wish to make their own judgement on it.
Beware of clear statements (often containing the words "obviously" or
"inherently") claiming the indisputable truth of an assertion which has not been
agreed to be true.

Noone said boo about my reply, way back, pointing out the use of racist lyrics
in popular (in this case, rap) music. Noone said boo about the suggestion that
a panel of child psychologists are in a pretty good position to make objective
and informed judgements as to what material is explicit enough to be potentially
psychologically harmful to young children. I think both are worth answering by
anyone who is trying to say that my position is logically flawed.

Which brings me to my final point (really!): I've noted throughout this thread a
manifestation of our dreaded enemy, PC (Political Correctness). Before anyone
shouts "foul," hold on a minute.

My position does not seem popular with the throng and press of the majority of
this notes conference. As a result (IMHO), many do not seem content to say "I
disagree," but instead seem to feel compelled to imply "You have to justify your
*right* to feel this way." In 60's-speak, it's the old "I'm OK, you're not OK"
attitude.

I realize that it's a difficult thing for anyone to swallow that *they* could be
guilty of such an attitude, but I respectfully suggest the possibility be
considered. As with racism, prejudice of *all* kinds is an easy habit for humans
to slip into. In discussions of issues likely to provoke strong personal opinion,
it is *not* easy for someone who disagrees with a position to be objective in
considering it. I'm just saying that this lack of objectivity has played a
definite part in this discussion. Note that the positions of the "no labelling
at all" position have *not* been subjected to the intense scrutiny that mine (and
Mike Diamond's) have; think about it.

This conference has, though, been one of my faves in my time here at DEC. I'll
miss you all, and hope to "see" you in another incarnation (i.e., a future
contract at DEC).

Cheers,

	Bob
 
    

    FWIW, I've read a little of this stuff here.  As far as labels go, I
    think that labels on music will do the same as the rating system has
    done for the movie industry.  That is, some label (similar to an "R"
    rating) will be seen as the one that gets the most sales.  So, music
    will seek to have material on it that gets that label on it.  In other
    words, rather than squelch "offensive" material, labeling may actually
    result in an increase as music makers respond to the market.
    
    How does the saying go?  You won't go poor by underestimating the taste
    of the American public ...
    
    Steve

    I've stayed out of this note of late because it didn't seem that people
    could 'keep the cool' a little while back... but
    
    something keeps occurring to me about this whole "labeling" and 
    "this stuff may be bad for you" issue... that has nothing to do with
    politics or censorship in the usual sense
    
    whatever the agenda of the folks who push for labels --- either through
    pressure on the industry or through the courts/legislatures --- did you
    ever get the feeling that these folks fundamentally DON'T LIKE the type
    of music they want labeled?  Did you ever get the feeling that they
    wish it would just go away somehow, and that people would stop wanting
    to listen to it or buy it?  That it would somehow be exorcised from
    American culture?
    
    That's another thing that bugs me, and it has nothing to do with
    politics; it's about 'enforcing' one's TASTES on society.
    \Gary

    > db, you argue the assumption that labels are intended to be used (or
    > will end up being used) to influence the nature of published material.
    > I don't agree; again, the intent (and, I believe, the use despite the
    > intent) is simply to note that the material *may* (you continue to
    > leave out that word!) be unsuitable for small children.

    Bob, I grant that the "intent" of this law is wonderful.  

    The "effects" of this law that concern me have already been amply 
    demonstrated by current events!

    I can not ignore the reality of the "effect" even though the "intent"
    is good.  You are clearly ignoring/denying a demonstrated effect.

    > As a result (IMHO), many do not seem content to say "I disagree," 

    Indeed.  I feel compelled to say "I disagree and here's why..."

    > But instead seem to feel compelled to imply "You have to justify your
    > *right* to feel this way."
    
    I asked you to justify your view, not to justify the "right to feel
    this way".  Rest assured that no one is capable of taking that right
    away.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    But let me say that I appreciate your participation here, admire you
    for doing it given the way your view has been sorta villified, and
    wish you best of luck in your career.

    RE: The dreaded "PC" label
    
    I haven't been posting much here lately because I felt I've stated my
    position pretty fully, and I haven't had anything to add that Dave
    Blickstein hasn't said.  However, I would like to respond to the parting
    comments of Bob Ashforth.
    
    Yes, I've been asking people to justify their position pro labelling.
    My intention was never to ask people to justify their *right* to hold a 
    position.  (Regrets if people took it that way.)  I do expect people 
    who publicly expound a position to have some arguments in favor of it
    - especially when I believe that position may end up infringing on my
    rights as a citizen.
    
    Personally, although I can understand the desire for labelling, 
    I cannot understand the argument in favor of instituting 
    labelling in light of the compelling (IMHO) evidence against it.  
    I've been interested in finding out why some folks support the labelling
    effort and, truth be told, hoping to influence how people look at the
    issue.
    
    It takes a open discussion between divergent viewpoints for issues to 
    be resolved, or at least for the grounds of those viewpoints to become
    clearer to both sides.  For this I am grateful to the folks presenting 
    the other side.
    
    This is (obviously) an issue I feel strongly about and am not likely to 
    do a full reversal of my position.  However, that doesn't mean that 
    I am not open to understanding the other position, no matter how much I 
    may disagree with it.  The core of my position is not likely to change, 
    but good arguments may shift the boundaries.
    
    If persuasive refutation of my arguments were presented by anyone, 
    my boundaries may have been shifted.  I found no persuasive arguments 
    presented.
    
    Also, I find the "Politically Correct" label pretty repellent. (Surprise!)
    It gets used as an easy way of tarring positions that one disagrees
    with without presenting any evidence to argue a counter-position.
    
    - Dave

Article 1659 of clari.news.music:
Subject: Rock band Aerosmith makes free speech stand
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 8:57:57 PDT

	BOSTON (UPI) -- The rock band Aerosmith Wednesday came to the aid of a
fine arts exhibit denied a grant by the National Endowment of the Arts
because it contained sexually explicit materials.
	Condemning last week's NEA action as censoring the freedom of
expression, the Boston-based superstar band donated $10,000 to support
the exhibit, replacing the grant that was vetoed by the acting NEA
chair, Anne-Imelda Radice.
	``We're angered to see artistic and personal freedoms erode,'' the
band said in a statement. ``We want the exhibit to be there for whomever
wants to see it.''
	The art exhibit, called ``Corporal Politics,'' is at the List Visual
Arts Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
	Radice last week vetoed the near-unanimous recommendation of two NEA
panels that the sexually graphic exhibit be given the grant.
	Radice said the List exhibit, and another at the Virginia
Commonwealth University's Anderson Gallery, both of which include
nudity, lacked sufficient artistic merit and excellence.
	The List exhibit, by four artists, features sculptures and
photographs of disembodied organs and exposed genitals that ``reflect a
sense of alienation and isolation in our society,'' curator Helaine
Posner said.
	``I think because we're receiving Aerosmith's support, we'll reach a
much broader audience and that's terrific,'' Posner said.
	A spokesman for Aerosmith said the group considered the rejection an
act of censorship. The rock group itself over the years has been
involved in censorship controversies, and has had to edit its music
videos before they are played on MTV.
	Aerosmith, led by Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, has produced a number
of songs and videos that contained strong language and sexual content.
	``You can't restrict the vision of artists,'' they said in a
statement. ``And you can't draw borders around freedom of expression
whether it is being communicated through words, visual images or however
artists choose to express themselves.''
	The donation was welcomed by List Director Katy Kline.
	``This is a good way to bring the incident and the situation to the
attention of people that might not be aware of it,'' she said. ``It's
great that people in the art world can help each other.''
	The List Center has also received a number of small donations to
support its exibit.

Article: 1257
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: They want their MTV
Date: Tue, 18 May 93 15:02:10 PDT
 
	BOSTON (UPI) -- The Massachusetts House Tuesday rejected an attempt to
ban MTV from basic cable television services by critics who said the
rock music channel encourages violence, drug abuse and victimization of
women.
	Rep. Mary Jeanette Murray, R-Cohasset, moved to overturn a vote by
the Government Regualtions Committee, which rejected her bill to make
the station available only as a premium service at additional cost.
	``MTV promotes violence against women and uses women as sexual
objects,'' said Murray. ``Kids listen to awful songs and become
brainwashed. Kids watch things they wouldn't be allowed to see in a
theater.''
	She said she has received numerous complaints from parents, who said
they had little success in their efforts to block their children from
watching the station by using special scrambling devices.
	Government Regulations Committee Chairman Michael Walsh, D-Agawam,
said the issue was better handled by the federal government, which has
recently rewritten regulations governing cable television. He also said
he was reluctant to defy voters on the issue.
	``I think there is a basic problem with making a service that is free
now a pay service,'' he said. ``I have a problem going back to my
constituents with that.''
	On a 118-25 roll call vote, the House rejected Murray's motion to
substitute her bill for the committee report.

    
    Good.
    

    >Good.
    
    I dunno, Tim - they *did* get 25 votes - I find even that small a
    number sufficient cause for alarm - these people are there to protect
    our freedoms and liberties?  great - I'll sleep better at night :-)
    
    						- Jim
    

    People petition Government to impose their "way of life" on others.
    
    Sometimes they fail; sometimes they succeed.  They will always be back
    with a more "reasonable" proposal when they fail.  They say the road to
    the camps is a one-way street.
    
    People who can't control their own kids want to control the rest of us.
    And Tipper Gore's husband is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
    \Gary

    
     The real sad thing is that MTV is popular enough to make the attempted
     censorship of it a news event.
    
     On another cynical note :^) would everyone care so much if the pending
     legislation would be to take, say, televangelists off basic cable?
    
    - Sean

I thought all televangelists were doing hard time by now.

    re: .257
    > The real sad thing is that MTV is popular enough to make the attempted
    > censorship of it a news event.
    
    Why is it that you feel that the attempted censorship of MTV becoming 
    a news event is a "sad thing"?
    
    And, yes, I would consider it equally offensive to free speech if
    there were a proposal to similarly restricted televangelists.  I can't
    speak for anyone else (which is what this is all about, after all).
    Does that certify me hypocrisy-free, then?
    
    If you have an agenda, how about stating it...?  Do you think that
    there is some kind of double standard with regard to the First
    Amendment these days?  (you may be right...)
    \Gary
    who doesn't even have cable, let alone MTV, but who has all the access
    to televangelists one could ever hope for	;7)

    
    Re: all
        
    >>People petition Government to impose their "way of life" on others. 
      
    You couldn't possibly be MORE correct!  I see this happening in many
    areas and often times it's people who have no real knowledge of a
    subject.  Because they're ignorant of it, they fear it and so, wish to 
    change it to suit themselves.   
    
    >>People who can't control their own kids want to control the rest of us.
    
    BINGO!
    
    Tim    
    

    Funny how MTV put on all that election stuff that helped get Clinton
    (AND Tipper!) elected, real public-service stuff, but nobody mentions
    that.  Wouldn't want our youngsters getting politically literate, or
    anything.

    The thing that REALLY kills me is that these Parents are all aging
    baby boomers who thought FREEDOM was a wonderful idea - when it 
    applied to them.  

    I guess everyone's folks turn out lame...  ;-)

    Sean, I think it has something to do with the declining standards
    of education in this country (probably due to too much rock and
    roll, I guess those southerners were right when burning Beatles
    records - maybe we SHOULD ban MTV!).

    Since people no longer know how to read, they have forgotten what
    the First Amendment says, if they ever knew:

	Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of
	speech, or of the press.

    If you cannot read, you might construe this unambiguous sentence
    as permitting censorship.  

    As David Bowie put it so well,
    "if you start giving artists freedom of expression.. pretty
    soon you're going to have to give it to everybody"

    re: .262   Sean Reilly
    
    Actually, I agree with you, and understand how you might feel that the
    standards don't seem to be applied with equal fervor.  But I think that
    in today's fragmented marketplace, that's what you get... I think it's
    OK for everyone to stand up for their little corner of freedom as long
    as we are all facing the same way and not arguing AGAINST the next
    person's liberties.  Thanks for sharing your pet peeve.  I, 4 1, think
    it's real.
    
    My litmus-test issue for those who claim to love liberty is their
    stance on the Second Amendment (_way_ beyond the scope of this notes
    file!).  I can't sit idly by (at least not in good conscience) and let
    2 Live Crew get hauled off to jail --- because they are only a way
    station on the way to my unborn grandchildren's guns.  Or your
    descendants' right to pray as they wish.
    
    I wish more people would wake up to this.  As long as the liberals have
    the media, and can shine their light on the Pat Buchanans and the other
    right-wing enemies of freedom, maybe no one will notice the laws that
    liberal democrats are passing.
    \Gary

    I just read a very interesting article about someone trying to give the
    Bible-thumping censors a taste of their own logic.
    
    Apparently an atheist in Minn is trying to get the Bible banned from
    school libraries on the basis of its "lewd, indecent and violent
    contents" being "hardly suitable for young students."
    
    Note how often the Bible-thumping censors advocate censoring music
    only because of things the music contains, not what it "says" which
    they never quite get around to looking at.
    
    The best example is the effort to get "I Want A New Drug" banned
    because of the drug reference - the real message of the song, of
    course, is that love is the best "drug" around.
    
    It can't be denied that the Bible contains depictions and references to
    lewd, indecent and violent acts so the logic behind removing media with
    such content clearly applies.
    
    I support this effort, NOT because I want to see the Bible banned (I
    don't), but because the best way to stop someone using flawed reasoning
    is to apply that reasoning against them. 
    
    	db

    a quick note:
    
    The lovely town of Leominster, Mass, home of the 10:00pm curfew and car
    radio loudness restrictions, had a town meeting Monday night to discuss 
    restricting sale of music carrying the "Parental Warning" stickers.
    The proponent of the meeting was an idividual who was upset by the
    lyrical contents of a cd that his daughter purchased.  The motion was
    defeated.
    
    chUck  
    
      

    Which cd?

    
    	RE: Chuck
    
    	Yes!!  A victory for free speech, IMO.
    
    	I actually thought it would go the other way, for some reason.
    
    
    	RE: last
    
    	It was the new album by the Butt Trumpets.