Conference napalm::heavy_metal

    
        From what I know, I believe Tipper Gore heard her daughter
        listening to 'Darling Nikki' by Prince ("masturbating with
        a magazine") and freaked - she started the whole 'record
        censoring' issue, about how records should contain warnings
        as to sexual references, obscenities, etc. (all the good
        stuff!!).
    
        Dee Snider and Frank Zappa represented the R&R world in
        Washington.
    
        But the rest, je ne sais pais.
    
                                                       Shawn GTI

    
    I guess they had a field day with WASP's "f**k like a beast"
                                              
    I think Blackie Lawless does it on purpose :-)
    
    -Tony

    
    	Hello I'm just back from my 5-day mini-vacation up at U-MASS.
    
    	I just wanted to get my 2 cents in on Tipper and the rest of
    her sexually frustrated, half brain dead, bunch of old Sunday school-
    type, pain in the ass friends. I think we should lock them in a
    room with Sam Kinasen, and Guns and Roses, for a few days....
    
    		May they all float in a bucket of pus and vomit for
    		years..........
    
    	They are trying to tell people what and what not to do!!
    
    					They Stink!!
    
    
    					The_Frankster
    
    
    	P.S.  I was being nice too!!!

    
    	   I won't deny that this discussion has left me totally
    	in the dark.  Would someone please explain to me what
    	PMRC means, and who this Tipper person is.  Presumably
    	they are related in some way, and are opposed to rock
    	music for some unknown reason.
    
    		May they have steel needles driven through
    		their eyes before falling head first into a
    		vat of concentrated hydrochloric acid.
    
    	   Sam Kinneson would indeed be my choice of 'trainer'
    	for such misguided individuals...  though they don't
    	deserve his kindness.
    
    		May they all find maggots running wild over
    		the half of the meatloaf they didn't eat.
    
    	-=[MOSAT]=-
    	(torture is my middle name)

    
        PMRC is the Parent's Music Resource Center.
    
        Or, Piss-ant Mothers Ruling Children.
    
        8^)
                                                       Shawn GTI
    

    OK, I'll try to be reasonable about this, but only because  
    someone has to answer this question.
    
    The PMRC is a group of lobbyists bsed out of Wahington, DC. They
    have been in the process of trying to get record companies to put
    stickers on the outside of albums to label them if they contain
    bad language, violent lyrics, etc. much like thy do with movies
    nowadays (PG-13, R, etc).
    
    Doesn't sound too bad, does it? Responsible parents looking out
    for their children. That's OK.
    
    The part that starts to turn sour is when we find out our ordinary
    housewifes are actually the wives of U.S. Congressman. But I can
    assure you that this relationship had nothing to do with the fact
    that the U.S. Senate decided to hold hearing on the subject. Now
    the government is involved,and we all know what that can mean.
    We have a royal f**kin' mess on our hands. 
    
    So now the U.S. Senate decides to hold hearings. After all is said
    and done, it ends up that no one is censored, there are some token
    labels put on the *really* bad LPs, and Sen. Albert Gore gets tons
    of publicity (and the government wasted enough money that could
    have fed 500 homeless for the next year).
    
    So, in summation, there was a lot of smoke and little fire. Most
    of this is all over now. It isn't even worth getting pissed off
    at anymore. 
    
    Alan S.

    
   
    >     The PMRC is a group of lobbyists bsed out of Wahington, DC. They
    >have been in the process of trying to get record companies to put
    >stickers on the outside of albums to label them if they contain
    >bad language, violent lyrics, etc. much like thy do with movies
    >nowadays (PG-13, R, etc).
    
    >Doesn't sound too bad, does it? Responsible parents looking out
    >for their children. That's OK.

    No, *that* doesn't sound too bad, and could probably live with it. (I
    ignore the warning labels on all my WASP records pretty much) However,
    that's NOT all the PMRC is trying to do. They also want to CENSOR
    recorded material in the end. Yes, I've read material from the PMRC
    where they actually state that artists like Prince, Madonna, Motley
    Crue, Twisted Sister, WASP, etc. must have `guidelines' to follow. They
    implied that the artists were getting `out of hand' and `needed a
    ceiling' put on their works to `keep our children safe' from their
    rampantly explicit material. 
    
    Any of you out there want Tipper and the PMRC reviewing lyrics (I don't
    know if they'd go as far as music censorship?! ["Tipper, this E-F-E-F
    riff from this Metallica group sounds too threatening!"]) from your
    favorite bands?  If they did, not only would it be like Big Brother,
    Metal would be greatly effected, and probably would have the lyrical
    content of any Marie Osmond song! (you gotta remember the PMRC thinks
    Rocky Mountain High from John Denver is about Heroin abuse and strongly
    oppose it!) 
    
    Buck

    I admit that wjb may be more accurate than my statements, or at
    least more detailed (he sort of supplemented what I said). I have
    not read any PMRC material, and have only gotten the info I have
    from the media. I answered only because no one else seemed to be
    giving a reasonable response to the question posed. Many thanks
    to Buck for helping clear this up!
    
    Also please understand that I do not in any way condone the PMRC.
    I mean, if their kids have problems later in life, it is not because
    of a song they heard when the kid was young; it is because their
    parents did not raise them correctly. Why don't they take the 
    responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming music or HM?
    
    Anyways, the PMRC seems to have been quiet lately. Or have I just
    been reading the wrong magazines?
    
    Alan S,

    
    	   Perhaps long, sharp steel needles were driven through their
    	eyes as they fell head-first into a vat of concentrated
    	hydrochloric acid... 
    
    		May their credit cards be revoked and their
    		assets frozen while they starve to death on
    		a cold winter day.
    
    	   Perhaps they discovered that public opinion was against
    	them, and decided that Frank Zappa was right, after all.
    	Musicians should be allowed to twist our sisters and brothers.
    
    	-=[MOSAT]=-
    	(manic metalhead)

    Probably the main reason that the PMRC have been so quiet lately
    is that Tipper and her cronies have something else to keep their
    miserable lives occupied:  namely, stumping along the campaign 
    trail with big Al.  They are just a bunch of senator's wives who
    need something to keep them busy while their "powerful" hubbies
    spend their time making speeches in Congress.  As was mentioned
    before, I doubt very much that any other group of "concerned"
    housewives in this country would have been granted the opportunity to
    get a hearing in the Senate.  It's not who you know it's who you......
    
    					the Bomb
    
                                                

    Say what you will, but I believe that Tippers fling with PMRC was
    a major contributing factor in Alberts lack of popularity in the
    presidential race.
    
    So, which foot did you shoot, Tipper?
    
    gh

    I saw a clip on MTV this weekend where Tipper has a book out now,
    I can't remember the name of it but it will probably pump some life
    into the ailing PMRC.   MTV also had a poll asking if you thought
    there was too much sex in videos and they showed 2 hours of so called
    "offensive" videos.  Naturally, almost all of 'em were HM except
    for Prince, and thank God he's in a class of his own.  It was wild
    too because, there was more sex on the comercials than on the videos
    but I guess that's OK.  Oh yeah, the result of the poll showed
    something like 79% said there WASN'T too much sex in videos.   I
    ask you, where did "pokey" get his name and why is "Smurfette" (the
    little blue sl*t) the only female in the village ?  And have you
    ever noticed how women are drawn on spce adventure cartoons ???
    And they give HM a hard time !!!
    
    
    					Mr Scary II

    
    
    Flipper's book is called something like, "Raising a PG Child in a Rated R
World".  I believe it actually came out around a year or so ago.  Dee Snider
also came out with a book, around the same time.  His was called (again I'm
not sure), "How to Raise a Teenager in the 80's".  I've seen Flipper's in
the bookstores, but not Dee's.  I read in the paper that he stopped promoting
it when the publisher would not print some stuff that Dee wanted in there.

    I saw most of that MTV thing and I thought they didn't rag on metal too
much.  They also had vids of Bowie, George Michael, Duran Duran, and Madonna.

    
    Paul
        

    Personally I dont think some one with a name like Tipper should
    be talking about HMs' influencing us to use drugs or have sex or
    do other undesireable things.  Her name to me indicates that its
    a nickmane given to her in college.  She sounds like a booze hound.
    Didnt her and hubby admit to doing pot in college?  She was probably
    the hard liquor straight shot queen  in her day.
    
    Brian
    
    						SUYLI
    

    
    I was reading an old issue of rip magazine last night.The issue
    was about rock cencorship they had an article about a 
    punk/heavy metal rehab center.It says the way they do it is
    to have the child cut his hair(my worst fear)were normal
    clothes,you can't associate with anyone that likes punk or metal
    on the phone or anyplace else,also you can't listen or even hear
    anything about the subject as I was reading this I thought waut
    a minute this is America I can almost do anything I want how can
    this be true.Does anyone know about this place I will bring in the
    article and copy it onto the system.the reaserch in thier brochore
    is half assed the most harmful bands they say are Anthray(x)
    and Mettallica,this was how they were spelled.
    
    				M
    				 B
    
    

                <<< DREGS::NOTES$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MUSIC.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< Music V3 >-
================================================================================
Note 206.3                 Frank Zappa and the PMRC                       3 of 3
SONATA::LANGE "Art,Technology,or Pure,Raw Sex?"       3 lines  20-JUN-1988 10:24
                                  -< Z-PACK >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You can obtain the entire Senate Congressional Hearing in script
    by calling 818-PUMPKIN...in L.A. for $1.50..
    

    
    re .18
    
    Yea I think I read that mag too(Slayer on cover).  There was an
    article about a Metal Reform School.  They had an interview with
    the fleamale who ran it, an ex parole officer who obviously is only
    using half a brain cell when dealing with kids.
    
    	They also had a couple of the reformed(loosers)children who
    claimed their lives were ruined by Hm.  Give me a break.  They cant
    handle their petty little boring lives so they need a scapegoat
    and Hm provided one but if you ask me they dont fool anyone with
    one or more brain cell working(which expilans why the PMRC believes
    em).
    
    Brian
    

    
    
    	A letter from a mother (49) with two twenty year old 
 	daughters regarding the PMRC.  Taken from "Metal Edge"
 	reprinted without permission.
    
    	I'm a 49 year old mother of two daughters in their early 
    	20's.  They've listened to rock music since they were two 
    	and three years old.  I get real upset when the PMRC and
    	other "responsible" adults put down heavy metal bands and
    	thier fans.  If they don't want their families to  listen
    	to metal music, that's their right.  But my children and I
    	have rights also and it should be our decision if it is
    	played in our home.  I've listened to MTV and gone to a 
    	couple of concerts, Ratt/Poison, Whitesnake/Motley Crue,
    	and I was impressed with all the time, energy, and hard work
    	that goes into making these concerts special for the fans.
    	If listening to records and going to concerts can turn our
    	young people bad, then the parents, schools, and churches
    	haven't done their job in the first place.  Let's not lay
    	the blame on the heavy metal groups.
    
   						Mary L.
    
    
    
    	HERE HERE!!!  This really led me to thinking...who does
    	the PMRC think they are?!  I've never really listened to
    	them, but now that I think about it, they are violating
    	people's rights.  Next thing you know, the USA is going to
    	become a dictatorship where there is no freedom.  (playing
    	of the Star Spangled Banner in background)....
    
    	This woman Gore is a senator's wife...who better to know
    	first hand about the rights of people!!
    
    	/Tig!
    

                (What a pain to find this note)
                
                Get this one . . .
                
                Now the  PMRC  offers  Heavy Metal detox!  You go
                in, they cut  your  hair however they wish to cut
                it, you are not allowed  to  bring  in *anything*
                having to do even remotely with  rock  and  roll,
                and  can't  even talk to your friends  that  like
                Heavy Metal!!!
                
                - Rob (who's creating a keyword for this one)
                
                

    
    
    	re:30....
    
    WHAT?!!! 
    
    Gimme a break, that can't be for real!
    
    /Motorbreath

                
                It's real.    Just  read  it  in a magazine lying
                around at my friend's house.  (Forget which)
                
                

    
        Keyword "pmrc" added.
    
        This sounds ridiculous ... do you admit yourself, or is
        it done by state wards and/or family members?
    
        8^)
    
                                                       GTI
    

    
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you guyz are talking
    about that one Quiet Riot video, either "Cum on feel the Noize"
    or "I'm Young,Wild, and Free". I'm not to sure about that last 
    one (there's a Triumph song similar to that title) but you know
    the vid where all the Metal Heads go thru a box and come out the
    other side lookin' like Pee Wee Herman. What ever happened to those
    guyz anyways, Quiet Riot not the Pee Wee's ;')
    
    Hollywood.................who feel's mind boggled right now! sheeesh!
    

			Taken from RIP magazine without permission

  PUNK/METAL DEPROGRAMMING
  Mind control of the 80's

 Imagine this:you have no god-given,inalienable rights,and you can just forget
 about the first amendment.You will dress the way we tell you to dress,cut your 
 hair the way we tell you to cut it,listen to what we tell you to listen to,
 read what we tell you to read,act the way we tell you to act and become 
 friends with the people we tell you are friends.You will never see your 
 old friends again.You will not make phone calls.You will not make phone calls.
 You will not speak,see,or in any way associate with anyone unless directed
 by us.You will tear down all posters,pictures,signs or decorations in your
 room.You will throw away all memorabilia and accouterments to your life.You
 will redecorate your surroundings to meet our demands.You will bury your 
 chosen lifestyle.You will believe what we tell you to believe,and will not
 think,act or in any way behave like a unique individual with a free,
 human will.You will be the person we want you to be,and you will do only
 what you are told.
  This is not,as one might suspect,the diatribute of a commandment in a 
 WW2 Nazi concentration camp or an excerpt from 1984.Hardly,It's far
 worse than that.It is,in fact ,the trendy new philosophy that a growing
 number of "concerned"and"enlightenend" American parents are using on thier
 parents(circa 1987).
  The problem with today's teens, apparently, has nothing to do with the
 fact that thier parents are never home, are bombed on drugs and alchahol,
 have been divorced three times and have screwed-up relationships,are 
 religious hypocrites,have sold thier souls to the corporation and have
 no true values or beliefs of thier own. No.The problem-th only reason
 thier kids have suddenly gotten out of control-is that dastardly 
 rock 'n' roll.
  Rock music has always been a scapegoat for deficient parents. they've
 always blamed rock 'n' roll for making thier kids turn rotten.But today,
 this delusion has reached proportions that would make even George Orwell
 shudder. Welcome American teens, to the age of back in Control.
  Back in Control is a lifestyle-remolding franchise, a rock 'n' roll 
 detox center, wich now has locations all of Southern California.
 Darlene Pettincchio, associate director of the for-profit program,claims
 that she has "de-punked and de-metaled hundreds" of "unchangeble" teens.
 according to Pettinicchio ,Back in Control was created in response to the 
 growing number of punk and heavy-metal juvinile offenders who need to be
 purged of thier "disease" in order to become responsible citizens.
  Greg Bodenhamer, the program's director, asserts:"No kid into punk or heavy 
 metal will admit that he, or she, has a prolblem. For some kids that's 
 true, but there is no way to tell which kid will breach the barrier
 from it being a game to the point where it becomes serious. Our recomendation
 is: Don't let kids be into punk or metal".
   "It's when they start to dress it ,or act it , that it becomes a problem."
  The Back in Control method employs total abstinence to achieve it's 
 results. Bodenhamer decrees: "Everything related to the music goes-friends,
 clothing,costumes,hair styles, the whole works. That includes phone contact
 with other heavy metal or punk fans."
  The vague term "other heavy metal or punk fans" is often used as an excuse
 to simply cutail all phone access, virtauly imprisoning the "subject's"
  Both Pettinicchio and Bodenhamer serve as "punk and heavy metal cunsutants"
 to the California law enforcement and juvinile authorities. Together they
 have produced a series of punk/heavy metal scare films, and conduct lectures
 and seminares for parents, teachers, and lawenforcement personel. The goal
 of all this is to highlight the dangers of punk and metal, and convince
 these authorities to refer cases to Back in Control. A four-week 
 program for the metal damaged kid costs a whopping $250.00.
  Pettinicchio states: "We don't realy solicit cases from the probation 
 departments becuase I'm a probation officer." However, another
 probation officer who requested anonymity said that Bodenhamer, an ex
 probation officer, came to his probation department and showed 
 Back in Control's scare movies-with the approval of the department's 
 officers. They soon began all of thier pertinant cases to Back in Control.
  As evidence by the massive approval of BIC's rock-detox program, it 
 would seem Pettinicchio and Bodenhamer must be authorities on punk and
 metal. They are certinly regarded as such by the juvinile authorities
 who refer cases to them and the parents who rely on them for information.
 Unfortunatly this is not the case.
  Pettinicchio has authored a 29-page manual to help inform parents on the 
 dangers of letting thier kids identify with punk and metal. It includes 
 a list of terms, magazines and bands, attempting to "explain" them
 and the various styles and symbols used by the metalers and the punkers.
 (As far as Pettinicchio is concerned, punk and metal are virtually 
 interchangeable.)
  In Pettinicchio's manual, several bands are listed as "currently or
 previously involved in the occult, black metal or satanism.
  Iron Maiden earned a place on Pettinicchio's blacklist. "I think it's just
 rediculous," says band member Dave Murray." If they want to carry on 
 saying that we're devil worshipers, that's thier problem. I think
 probably becuase we had an album out called number of the beast, they 
 said, 'these people are devil worshipers.' So, we bacame scapegoats because
 they think they've actually got something on vinyl they can put down, and
 shock people by saying what we are. But, as you probably know, we aren't.
 they're trying to put things in there that aren't there.
  Of course, the list wouldn't be complete without including KISS or,
 according to Pettinicchio, "Knights In Satans Service." Despite
 statements to the contrary, lead bassist/vocalist Gene Simmons claims
 that, "I did not have a cows tounge grafted on, and KISS did stand
 for Knights In Satans Service. Someone has a much imagination than 
 I do.
  Another strange claim in Pettinicchio's brochure refers to Led Zepplin.
 It reads:"ZOSO sign.Demon;three-headed dog that guards the gates to hell.
 Jimmy Page's nickname." Well, first off, the aincient Greeks, in mythology,
 had a similer dog, but it's name wasn't ZOSO, it was Cerebus. Danny
 Goldberg, an official with Gild Mountain Records, who cuurently manages
 Don Johnson of Miami Vice and in the mid '70's, ran Led Zepplins label
 Swan Song ads,"I worked with the guy (Page) for three years. It was not
 his nickname. His nickname is 'Pagey.'"
  Some of the other bands blacklisted in other sections of the Back in Control
 are "Donkken"(Dokken),"Anthray"(Anthrax) and"Metellica"(Metallica). This
 says a lot of quality of the research behind it's publishing. It's  little
 suprise that most of the acknowledgement goes to members of the L.A. Sheriffs
 office. And the three women that are listed as researchers? When asked about
 there credentials, Pettinicchio had this to say: "They did what I told them to 
 do."
  The brochure, as seen through the eyes of someone truly familiar with
 heavy metal, reads somewhat like a comic book. with Quotes like, "Occult
 graffiti is frequently placed underground, under bridges, in flood- 
 control channels and under freeway overpasses to be closer to hell and
 the devil," one almost has to laugh.
  The brochure also mentions "satanic animals"(frogs, donkeys, ad nauseum)
 and satanic "Metals"-silver-which, according to Jello Biafra of the Dead
 Kennedys,"is what most people eat with." The book futher states that
 punkers and metalers,"dress primarily in black(death evil and darkness)."
 It may be noted by Pettinicchio that most nuns also wear black.
  Regarding heavy-metal fans, Pettinicchio complains, "they greet each
 other with the sign of Satan, a hand sign made by closing the fist
 and extending the index and little finger. The fingers that are up
 represent the devil's horns, and the fingers down represent the denial of
 the Trinity(Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)." Perhaps someone should 
 inform Texas Longhorns football fans, because that sign is also part
 of their official cheer.
  Another noted target is the Star of David. the brochure features a section
 entitled "Signs and Symbols of Heavy Metal." the Christian cross is drawn,
 with one placed immediatly next to upside down. the correlating description
 reads, "The Christain cross-worn or used by devil players-represents the
 denouncing of Christianity."(Naturally, the cross is listed as an occult 
 sign only when "worn by devil players or upside down.) Other symbols 
 pictured in this section are the swasticka, the pentagram and the Star of
 David. When asked why the Star of David is satanic, Pettinicchio claims,
 "The reason for the Star of David...if you know anything about the occult,
 you'll know that it's the opposite of Christianity. Thats what the occult
 is."
  She continues,"The haxagram is a very sacred, if you don't mind using the
 word 'sign' in the Jewish religion. ne of the reasons they picked the 
 hexagram is because it is six pointed, and has the three main letters 
 H-E-X. And a hex is something alot of kids get involved with, haxes and
 casting spells.And(that star) has an aura of mystery snd mystique 
 associated with it."
  Right at the very begining of her manual,Pettinicchio thanks various 
 deputies of the California sheriff's department's as well as "The police,
 probation officers and institutional staff throughout the state of
 California." And when asked if the police and probation departments
 actually endorse Back in Control, she replies,"It appears they do. I
 mean, they send people to us, and they ask us for training for thier
 staffs."
  "It sounds like the police departments are promoting a private 
 company," Says James Curran, executive director of the American Law 
 Enforcement-an organization wich promotes ethical practices in police
 work," Of course it's illegal...it's govermental misconduct! I think
 you've found a good situation for legal action."
  Back in Control seems to be an organization working closely with the 
 goverment-doing to things wich can trample on Constitutional Liberties,"
 adds American Civil Liberties Union Representative Barry Lynn, "First,
 they restrict content that persons under probation can read and 
 associate with-wich is content-based prohibition. And secondly, they
 seem to be promoting a sectarian religious viewpoint in the 
 masquerade of rehabilitation."
  Unfortunitly, civil liberties for minors in America is severly limited.
 They are not, however, nonexistant. "They have plenty of them," adds 
 Lynn."take the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, for example, shows you
 don't leave your constitutional rights on the doorsteps of the school.
  When I hear about peole like Pettinicchio and Bodenhamer," explains
 Danny Goldberg," I thank god for the wisdom of people like Jefferson 
 and Washington, who allowed for diversity...and allowed for freedom.
 You'd end up with a society resembling the USSR or Iran with out it.
  Despite Pettinicchio's assertions in her brochure that,'punk and metal
 oppose the traditional values of those of authority and encourage 
 rebelliousness,'" Goldberg points out," I think we're normal Americans,
 and they're the deviants. We're the conservatives here, trying to 
 maintain the tradition that made our country great. And it's people 
 like these who are trying to change it into a different kind of 
 America..I think it's a very dangerous trend.
  
	
	Typists Note "Is this heavy"

    				M
    				 B
    

    The official word on those 2 kids who blew their brains out while
    listining to Judas Priest is that they were:
    
    o	Drinking Lots of Hard liquor
    o	Smoking Pot
    o	AND snorting cocaine
    o	as well as listing to Judas Priest.
    
    Yup, definately the music that did it to them!
    
    Steve O

    
    	Crap like that makes me want to vomit ! (No offense BK, thanks
    for  printing it !)  When  are  these  people going to wake up and 
    smell  the coffee and STOP looking for people to bash.  Seems like
    now-a-days, certain  people  aren't  happy unless they're trashing
    someone elses likes and dislikes.  
    
    	Don't ya' just  HATE extremists and people with a `Holier Than
    Thou' attitude ?
    
    METALord"

    
    I read that issue....Slayer on the cover right??  They also have
    pictures of some of the "cured" kids and of that woman (term used
    for lack of a better word.).  She looks like a Nazi...very scary
    (no relation to II).  I can't believe the ignorance shown quite
    clearly by this woman..  All one can do..after reading that load
    of sh*t is laugh.  It's so ludicrious (sp?)..and the they had quotes
    from the "cured" children....very weak individuals who didn't like
    their lives and needed some attention because they were so boring.
    
    I can't believe that are people that are that lame as to blame their
    childrens probs on music...while the parents are all shooting up
    or getting laid by the 7th different man...(that night).
    
    If people like that woman..who runs the prison camp...oops I mean
    the rehab clinic get into public office... I'm canada bound...
    
    Au revoir
    
    Bk
    

    I just thought I'd add a little tid-bit of info that might be relevent.
    The Schwastika origanlly meant peace before the Nazi's took it over.
    I know most of the bands that use this symbol don't do so for peace,
    but some may.
    
    
    The Sentinel
    

    
    Hmmmm, I remember reading a book of various signs and their meanings.
    I think the Schwastika also meant good luck.  FWIW.
    
    
    						The Pizza Guy      <)
    

    I think the meaning depends on which way the ends are pointing.
    
    Chris D.

    I'm sure it mean alot of things.  I got my info. at the BMFA.  They
    had a painting of one and it gave a brief history of it.  I guess
    it is supposed to be kinda like a cross in it's meaning.  
    
    The Sentinel

    I watched a Video last night called "Hard & Heavy Volume II".
    Apart from great Video's and interviews, there was one section
    pertaining to the PMRC.  Lemmy from Motorhead was giving his opinion
    on this particularly nasty orginisation, and although I can't give
    you any direct quotes, the message was something like this:
    
    	The only way the PMRC can succeed, is if you let them.
    	Dont be scared of these f*****s.  It's the fear that will make
    	them succeed.  Treat them as another joke and thats what they
    	will become!  There are very few things in the UK better than
    	the States, but if someone tried to start something like the
    	PMRC in the UK...... they would be laughed out of existance.
    
    For the full story see the Vid. It was excellent!
    
    Bonzo

    
    Yeah - that was good.
    
    Lemmy made some good points about if you're scared of thewm then
    they can hurt you. The PMRC wouldn't last 30 seconds in England.

    
    
                         PMRC-Killed by death!!
    
    
    
    
                             DEEBS

    >/prc (not to be confused with pmrc)

    ..or rcmp either!

    I think the pmrc has ***EVERY*** right to say the stuff they say. We
    don't have to like it. All you who want to do all sorts of obscene
    things to Tipper Gore is no better than she is. After all, we are not
    Communists, and I will defend (to the death) her right to say whatever
    she wants under her basic rights as an American.
    
    the devil dog

    >I think the pmrc has ***EVERY*** right to say the stuff they say.  We
    >don't have to like it. 
    
    I agree...and I know at least Carla does too (I mean, she doesn't
    even like heavy metal!).

    Freedom of speach gives the PMRC every right to say what it likes.
    
    It also gives the citizen the right to disagree, and I disagree
    with what I know of them so far.  I also admit to not knowing a
    great deal about them, and that I am biased.  But there again, this
    conf. is based in the USA, but it is read world wide.  If anyone
    who disagrees with the PMRC does not speak out, only PMRC's point
    of view will get across.
    
    Freedom of speach is a two edged sword and therefor evryone has
    the right to express their opinion.  Even if it upsets the PMRC.
    
    Bonzo (in a series mood for a change).

    I also disagree with what they say but I will defend their right to say
    it. I also exercise my rights to do what I can to see that they don't
    infringe on the rights of others. IMO censorship is a step towards
    socialism, and we already have too much of that. Warning labels are ok
    IMO, they may help the comsumer make a more informed decision on
    whether or not they wish to purchase a certain product. Telling me what
    to buy and what not to buy is where I draw the line. They have a right
    (that I will defend) to their opinions, but they have ***NO*** right to 
    keep me from having mine. 
          
    
    the devil dog who feels like a bleeding heart.

    I am generally against the PMRC, but in order to argue persuasively
    against them, you have to argue against what they advocate, not what
    you think they represent.
    
    THere are some inaccuracies about their position being bandied about
    in this country.  It's almost like we're accusing them of being the
    devil.
    
    	1) They have not advocated censorship.  In fact, they have stated
    	   that they do not support censorship.  Censorship is the
    	   SUPPRESSION of material.  Record labels do not prevent
    	   anyone access to the material.
    
    	   If you want to bark about censorship, go after the people who
    	   give you movie ratings.  X and R ratings PREVENT people from
    	   being able to see movies.  That *IS* censorship.
    
    	2) They are not trying to tell you what to listen to.
    
    	   The label is a subjective opinion as to the content of the
    	   album.  It is not a "recommendation", and even if it was
    	   it's one you are free to ignore.
    
    	   And even if they were trying to tell you what to listen to,
    	   they have a right to do that!   Fortunately, you have a right
    	   to ignore what they "tell" you to do.
    
    It's really hard to argue against the record label proposal on the
    basis of censorship.  It simply is NOT that, when you do that,
    it is YOU that looks like the fanatic.
    
    Accusing them of trying to control what you listen to when there
    is no evidence to that effect, has about as much persuasive impact
    as some fanatic saying that  rock'n'roll is the devil trying to
    control kids.  Stick to arguments that can be demonstrated by evidence,
    rather than accusations of motives and what not.
    
    There are better methods to argue against the record labels.  You
    might wish to look into the MUSIC conference.  We've discussed this
    at incredible length.
    
    	db

>    It's really hard to argue against the record label proposal on the
>    basis of censorship.  Accusing them of trying to control what you listen 
>    to when there is no evidence to that effect, has about as much persuasive 
>    impact as some fanatic saying that  rock'n'roll is the devil trying to
>    control kids.  Stick to arguments that can be demonstrated by evidence,
>    rather than accusations of motives and what not.

Well, I don't want to get into a long debate about it, because all of these 
points were mentioned in detail in the MUSIC conference. But I believe that, 
while the PMRC is not advocating censorship per se, I think the plan they have 
outlined will restrict the distribution of some records. In effect, censorship 
(maybe not in name, but it will accomplish the same goal in the long run).

If there are record that are labelled as X (or wahtever the system they use),
there is a very good possibility that that album (or tape or CD) may not be 
stocked by many of the national distributors. Places like Sears, K-Mart, 
and even national record chains like Musicland and Record Bar, already bow 
under pressure and refuse to carry certain albums. With the rating system, I 
believe this practice will occur more and more frequently.

What about the record store employee arrested in Florida for selling obcene 
material to a minor? (She sold a kid a 12" rap hit that contained vulgarity.) 
Publicity like this are what the large chains fear the most, and would certainly
veer away from stocking those records if they were so plainly labelled for the 
world to see.

I prefer your argument over in MUSIC, db. Let the PMRC publish a guidebook to 
albums, and let concerned parents subscribe to this newsletter. That way 
parents can protect their children, while there is a much smaller chance of 
indirect censorship via labelling.

cat

     As always, I've done a swan dive into an empty pool. Okay, so I
    guess I'll go to the hatchet note and apologize to Tipper. True,
    she does have every right to say what she wants, but I always get
    worried when a group or individual starts issues like this. Call
    it a fear of sparks turning into fires. 
    
    Re: .54 Yo, Devil Dog! What part of the service were you in?
    

    re: .59
    
>If there are record that are labelled as X (or wahtever the system they use),
>there is a very good possibility that that album (or tape or CD) may not be 
>stocked by many of the national distributors. Places like Sears, K-Mart, 
>and even national record chains like Musicland and Record Bar, already bow 
>under pressure and refuse to carry certain albums. With the rating system, I 
>believe this practice will occur more and more frequently.
    
    Well.  Basically, I have to acknowledge that it's a possibly scenario.
    
    I feel that most of the typical cases people make against the PMRC can be
    effectively debated (see MUSIC), but on this point there's no clear 
    resolution because this is speculation.
    
    First, I believe there will always be places to obtain the albums
    as long as there's a market for them.   I have never been to a
    place where no pornography is sold.
    
    Second, if this scenario happens, it strikes me as democracy rather
    than censorship.  Boycotts are a valid way to express views.  I believe
    there'll always be a place to buy your Metallica albums as long as
    there's demand for them.  The demand won't be affected because the
    people who threaten the stores with boycotts probably aren't buying
    Metallica albums anyway.
    
    Third, I've heard even MORE speculation that the labels would have the
    OPPOSITE effect!!!
    
    During his testimony (at the Senate hearing) Donny Osmonad of all
    people said that if labels were put on records, he'd probably have
    to make his stuff a little saltier because clean albums would have
    the same stigma that a G-rated movie has.   No kid wants to seen
    with a sissy album.
    
    In fact, this has already been demonstrated in the case of movie
    ratings.  There have been several films that initially got G or GP
    ratings were resubmitted with new scenes in order to pull the rating
    "up" to a GP or R.   In fact, the G rating has an established
    nick-name among movie studios producing "teen films".  They call
    the G-rating "the kiss of death" for a teen flick.
    
    	db

    People often get confused about my stand on the PMRC-related issues
    because I seem to always be taking up the defense of the PMRC.
    
    I am absolutely against mandatory or "coerced" record labelling.
    
    My interest here is not to promote their (PMRC) interests, but rather
    to get people to stop using what I say as a plethora of ineffective
    arguments against the PMRC, understand the REAL issues, and thus
    be able to make a convincing argument against their positions.
    
    The major point of my rap against Zappa's testimony (in .61) is
    that it's both easy and pointless to make moving speeches to people
    who are ALREADY convinced that record labelling is bad.  It does NO
    GOOD.
    
    The people you have to convince are the undecideds and the ones that
    think it's good.  
    
    You don't accomplish that with:
    
    	o Death threats
    
    	o Name-calling and ridicule.  That makes YOU look bad, not them.
    	  When they can provide substantive argument and all you can
    	  provide is banter, you don't have a case.
    
    	o Fighting windmills.  That is, accusing them of have any other
          positions or goals than the ones they state and then debating
    	  those goals.
    
    	  It's easy to defeat the opposition when you invent the
          opposition.  Unfortunately, the PMRC is real and they are
    	  very effective at persuading people and in a good position
    	  to do it.
    
    	db

    Dave,
    
    I actually agrred with what you said. I was only putting in more
    info at the end to make my views on this clear.  You are correct
    when you say that labelling may have the opposite effect.  It has
    happened before and will happen again.  Appitite for Destruction
    for example was released in the UK with a sticker warning that
    some people may find the lyrics offensive.  This in it'self probably   
    had something to do with the phenominal success of the album in
    the UK.
    
    Bonzo    
    

    I haven't read the last few replies in detail (too long), but I'll add
    my thruppence worth.
    
    FLAME ON
    
    While I support the right of those in the PMRC to state their views,
    they have not right to impose those views on me. Similarly I have no
    right to impose my views on them. I can't force people to listen to the
    sorts of music and wouldn't want to.
    
    What I find so galling about all this is the "mother knows best"
    attitude that appears to come from the clean up merchants. Anything
    they do not like, do not understand, or is outside their experience
    appears to be labelled as "bad".
    
    Nothing (and that includes any form of music) is bad in itself. It is
    the use that we humans put it to that can be bad. For example, an axe
    is useful for cutting wood and a rope is useful for pulling heavy gear.
    But when used to kill someone, they are not so good. Similarly a car is
    useful for getting around this planet, but in the hands of a
    drunk-driver it becomes a lethal weapon.
    
    The problem is where do you draw the line? If, for example, it is
    decided that albums which mention specific topics (such as war or drugs)
    need a label, what happens with those albums that are against those
    topics. I can think of a number of albums whose lyrics and/or cover art
    are very nasty. However, they appear in a broader context that helps to
    put a message across. Would those albums be labelled in the same way as
    the gratuitous ones?
    
    This brings me on to another point. We may moan and winge but rock
    could do a lot to clean up its act. Some of the lyrics and stage acts
    I've met are little more than empty tittilation. They're violent and
    sexist (for example) with no reason.
    
    So I suppose the point is that if we don't do it ourelves, someone else
    will do it for us. That "someone" probably won't have any appreciation
    of rock and will ban all forms of the music leaving the whole world a
    much sadder place.
    
    By the way, while I'm here, I don't agree with the insinuation that
    censorship=socialism. I can think of a number of non-socialist regimes
    that were/are much more censorous than any socialist one. (eg, South
    Africa or Hitler). A regime's political persuasion is not an indication
    of their tolerance.
    
    SET KEEF/OFF=SOAPBOX
    
    FLAME OFF
    
    Keef.

>    While I support the right of those in the PMRC to state their views,
>    they have not right to impose those views on me.
    
    Could you provide me with an example of how they are imposing views
    on you?
    
    If not, what are you flaming about?
    
    	db

    
    As Cat said, isn't pressuring certain stores so they don't carry
    certain material imposing their views ?

    re:  
    
    Well, first off, I'm not aware of any effort on the part of the
    PMRC to pressure stores.  I suspect that you are lumping them
    in with the other reactionary conservative groups which have done
    stuff like that.
    
    But whether it's them or not, may not matter much
    
    > As Cat said, isn't pressuring certain stores so they don't carry
    > certain material imposing their views ?
    
    You tell me?
    
    I'll bet most of you have imposed your views in the same way.  Seems
    to me this is a simple boycott.  They are saying, "you carry those
    records, we stop buying in your stores".
    
    Are you prepared to tell me that boycotts are an inappropriate because
    they attempt to impose rather than express?
    
    	db

    
    Didn't your mother ever teach you not to answer a question with 
    another question ?

    I asked you first 8^) !

    re: .170
    
    > Didn't your mother ever teach you not to answer a question
    > with another question?
    
    My mother probably taught me to answer a question with another
    question.  Can't you tell from my name I'm Jewish???  ;-)
    
    > I asked you first.
    
    I think I've answered your question:
    
    	1) I don't think they are pressuring stores
    
    	2) If they were, I don't see that as being any different
    	   from a boycott that YOU might have participate in
    
    Now will you answer the questions I asked in my last note?
    
    	db
    
    

>    	It's not really that, it's the fact that some people who don't
>    	understand something, react to it on the basis of what they think 
>    	it is.
    
    It's not clear to me whether this refers to the PMRC reacting to
    rock music, or rock music reacting to the PMRC.
    
    In any case, it's a perceptive comment because I'm convinced that
    regardless of what you meant, it applies equally to both.
    
    	db

    re db actually I wasn't reacting to anything (if in fact you were
    refering to me). After reading some of the latest replies I am
    convinced that I thought they were a little more active in trying to
    get records BANNED. I suppose I should've been a little more informed.
    I wasn't flaming tho. I heard of some group that is trying to get
    certain records banned from stores in Denver. That is what I meant. 
    
    dd

    I wasn't responding directly to you.  I was responding to Mr. Fagg's
    note.
    
    But my statement applies to anyone who implies that the PMRC are
    
    	o "Telling people what to listen to"
    
    	o "Promoting Censorship"
    
    	o "Trying to suppress certain kinds of music"
    
    The PMRC is composed of very savvy people who know that they will
    not achieve any of their goals if they can be legitimately accused
    of violating constitutional principles.
    
    Not only haven't they promoted censorship, they have rather carefully
    and diligently skirted around it to avoid attaching the label of
    "censorship" to their cause.
    
    Because of that, (and this is what frustrates me) they have been
    rather successful at making the people who ACCUSE them of censorship,
    look like the fanatics, rather than the PMRC itself.
    
    You can make your cause look very good by having the other side throw
    all kinds of lies and garbage at you.  It makes the other side look
    they have nothing substantive in their argument.
    
    	db

    I haven't the time to reply now. Besides, I need to have a think (given
    the recent input to this note). I'll get back later.
    
    In the meantime, can someone (one only please) explain WHY the PMRC was
    created, WHAT it's aims are, and so on?
    
    I'm getting very confused (probably through reading only press reports
    of their activities her in the UK).
    
    Keef.

    Obviously there has been a lot of propaganda floating around on both
    sides of the question.  The press has blown the entire proposition out
    of proportion and has passed as much misinformation as correct
    information (as usual).  You can probably tell that I feel strongly
    that the press in the United States is extremely biased and cannot be
    trusted.  In a study of propoganda techniques, one of the first you
    learn is that of using selective information, which is what our press
    actively does to make their point, and one thing that I am adamantly
    opposed to.  (opps, sorry to get off the subject)

    My personal opinion on the PMRC:

    While the PMRC has stated that they do not propose censorship, I
    believe that they do sponsor it indirectly.  They are seen as a
    springboard for more extreme groups that care a little less about the
    constitutional aspects of the issue, both by these groups and by their
    opponents.  The group that Jesse mentioned which is trying to ban
    certain records from stores in the Denver, CO area is a very good
    example of this.
    
    This is what I believe to be the the real danger of the PMRC.  It's not
    from the group themselves or what they are trying to currently
    accomplish, but from the precident that making such a law makes.  It is
    the potential of what a step in this direction may mean for the future.
    
    I do not believe that one can legislate morality, nor should one try.
    
    gh

    re: .78
    
    > Why the PMRC was created, WHAT it's aims are and so on?
    
    Understand that what I'm about to say are the "stated" objectives.
    
    You will discover that anti-labelling people are very prone to
    discuss what their "real" objectives are, even though the PMRC
    folks have denied those as their "real" objectives and, have
    acted quite consistently with that denial.
    
    The PMRC was formed by a group of woman, many of whomo are married
    to high government officials (senators, cabinet members, etc.).
    Their concern is with some of the common themes of rock and roll
    (violence, drugs, denigration of women, etc.).  They point out
    that many parents feel the presentation of these themes are
    inappropriate for their children.
    
    One of their stated objectives is to "air" the issue - make people
    aware of what their kids are listening to.  They produced pamphlets
    and such, but the most significant thing was a congressional hearing
    on the subject.
    
    NO LEGISLATION WAS PROPOSED.  The hearing was just a forum.  Some
    say that the PMRC abused the privilege of their spousal relationships
    in order to get the hearing.  I have no doubt that the hearing wouldn't
    have happened WHEN IT DID if that weren't the case, but these kind
    of hearings (no legislation/open forum) are common and it would've
    happened eventually in all liklihood, thus I consider that a moot
    point on top of the fact that the hearing was "mostly harmless" (just
    a forum, and I approve of forums).
    
    The PMRC have been putting pressure on record companies to institute
    voluntary labelling.  They have not outrightly threatened any
    legislation, but have often hinted at it.
    
    The record companies did "agree" to "voluntary" labelling, but in all
    truth, simply haven't fulfilled the promise they made.
    
    The PMRC feels that labels are not censorship (and I agree with that)
    but are rather "truth in advertising".   They feel labels are justified
    on the same basis that any product's contents must be identified,
    particularly when those contents are potentially harmful.
    
    I myself think that the "truth-in-advertising" analogy has some
    validity, but I also find it not absent of flaw either. I think it
    rests on them establishing that the things that would be labelled
    are indeed "harmful".   In fact, it would probably boil down to
    a debate about what constitutes "harm".
    
    I also draw an analogy with movie ratings.  X and R movie ratings
    are TRUE censorship in that they prevent access, but you don't
    see people bitching about them.  That inconsistency seems like a
    valid point for the PMRC.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, and I believe my knowledge to be rather
    good in this area, the PMRC has NEVER EVER advocated any action that
    would remove "access" and thus constitute censorship.
    
    As .79 demonstrates, there are many who feel this is a "first step
    towards censorship".   Frankly, I think you can't argue against
    something on the basis of what the "next step" might be.   If the
    problem is with "the next step" than you draw the line at "the next
    step", not at the "step before it".
    
    It's very easy to take any position and draw convenient conclusions
    about what the next step might be.
    
    	db

    re: .80

    >As .79 demonstrates, there are many who feel this is a "first step
    >towards censorship".   Frankly, I think you can't argue against
    >something on the basis of what the "next step" might be.   If the
    >problem is with "the next step" than you draw the line at "the next
    >step", not at the "step before it".

    I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to argue against something on
    the basis of the precedent it would set.  Slavery in the United States
    set an unwarranted precedent of prejudice against black people.  If not
    for slavery, I don't believe that this precedent would have been set. 
    If for no other reason then the fact that I oppose prejudice, I would
    oppose slavery. 

    The anticipation of any action setting a precedent is a matter  of
    personal interpretation and interpolation of data and events.  It
    should be at least partially based on historical evidence and partially
    on personal experience and knowledge of human nature.  It's much like a
    scientific hypothesis, it may or may not come to pass as you expect,
    but it still begs to be done.

    My personal proposition is that that putting some of the requests that
    the PMRC has suggested into effect *would* set a precedent which would
    allow an easier path toward legislation limiting our rights to listen
    to or read what we wish.  

    I believe that the establishment of movie ratings did establish a
    precedent.  Currently there are no restrictions on non-visual material
    (books, recordings).  As .80 said, the PMRC is using the fact that
    motion picture ratings are publicly accepted as a point favoring their
    position that recordings should be similarly rated.  Where will they
    draw their line?  Obviously not with visual materials, as they are now
    suggesting this for auditory materials.  The next logical progression
    is to written materials.  It is this progression that I don't like. 

    I also believe that the progression from classifying something to
    actual censorship is a frighteningly short one.  It is much easier to
    hold a heavy rock currently in a stationary position then to stop it
    once it has begun to roll.

    >It's very easy to take any position and draw convenient conclusions
    >about what the next step might be.

    Certainly.  Just as it's very easy to take any position and ignoring
    it, then being unhappy with the consequences which affect you.

    I do agree with someone back there in the discussion that said that the
    rock (including heavy metal) genre in general could use a little
    cleaning up.  My personal feeling is that song topics such as sex, drug
    use, degradation, and others should be used in moderation.  The
    majority of life is not comprised of these things, why sing about them
    so much?  Also with the excessive use of profanity.  I believe that
    profanity should be used only to add emphasis to a statement.  If
    overused, it loses it's impact and becomes useless.  Most intelligent
    people do not swear frequently in everyday speech, why do these
    songwriters feel we want to hear it in everyday songs?  

    gh
                                                            

    Taken from .80 (spelling corrected ;^)
    
    >>""The PMRC was formed by a group of women, many of whom are married
    >>to high government officials..."
    
    Right on!!  We need more government officials who get high!!
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist ;^)
    
    This is a sticky issue and I'm not sure where I stand.  On the one
    hand I believe that since parents can't possibly be aware of all
    recorded music (lyrics, sleeves, videos) it might be a good idea
    to have some kind of labelling system.  The only drawback with this
    is who does the labelling?  I mean I'm not gonna stop one of my
    kids from buying a tape just because someone says "sh*t" in one
    of the songs.  But I might stop my kids (up to some age of course)
    from buying an album that is loaded with obscenities, violent imagery,
    sex, etc.  The problem is how will they differentiate the gradations
    of labels?
    
    On the other hand, music is art (well to some extent anyway ;^) just
    like literature or sculpture.  I happen to feel that my kids shouldn't
    read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" until they're at least 13 years old,
    but how can I keep the same logic across ALL literature?  I mean
    I'm fairly well read, but I don't know what every book my kids bring
    home might contain within its covers.  I don't believe in labelling
    books.
    
    Like I said, sticky issue.  I'm confused.
    
    joe.

    RE: .81
    
    I think you're ignoring one of the problems of the "next step"
    pitfall.  Permit me to slip into my devil's advocate disguise
    and demonstrate:
    
    >I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to argue against
    >something on the basis of the precedent it would set. 
    
    Amen brother.   If we allow people to make subtle suggestions about
    suicide, using drugs, etc. the "next step" is to tell kids directly
    to do these things.
    
    We should ban all music that makes subtle suggestions about suicide,
    using drugs etc.
    
    > Slavery in the United States set an unwarranted precedent of 
    > prejudice against black people
    
    Slavery was not the "previous step" before the line.  Slavery was
    well over the line.
    
    	db

    re: .83

    >I think you're ignoring one of the problems of the "next step"
    >pitfall.

    Sure, I understand that it goes both ways.  However I think you could
    have chosen a better example then the one you used.  The next step
    measure you listed has no direct effect.  So what if someone told me or
    my (theoretical) kid to go kill ourselves?   You then have to go to the
    "next next step" where we blindly obey everything we're told.

    Another thing about it is that nothing in our current laws prevent
    someone from making either subtle suggestions OR explicit instructions
    for suicide, using drugs, or whatever they choose to say.  The First
    Amendment to the Constitution (in the US) guarantees them this.  Would
    you deny this?

    What I see as the major difference between your example and the "next
    step" which I predict on the PMRC issue is the matter of personal
    choice.  I have heard Frank Zappas song (sorry I don't remember the
    title) that chants "ram it in the poop shoot" for years.  I should be
    thoroughly brainwashed by now,  yet I do not engage in anal sex (or any
    other sort of anal activity).  Talking about suicide or using drugs
    does not make a person do them, however passing legislation which
    restricts access to a media DOES force an action, removing personal
    choice from the picture.

    Likewise, my use of the slavery and prejudice example was probably also
    a poor choice, since it was actually not a direct relationship,
    probably more of a "chicken and egg" type question.  Unfortunately it
    was the only one that popped to mind at the time I was writing that.

    gh                      

    
    
         No anal activity?!  Kind of tough on the Digestive Tract huh?
               8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 
    

    re: 84
    
    I think your comments about the "suicide" example I mentioned
    demonstrate yet another problem with the "next step" argument.
    
    Each of us can choose whatever "next step" is convenient to our
    position. 
    
    Example: you say there's a step between lyrics and someone killing
    someone.
    
    It's not too hard for me to support the notion that there are
    also significant steps between labelling and true censorship,
    such as requiring parental permission to buy certain albums.
    
    We could waste hours debating whether or not your "next step" is
    better than "my next step", but we could never resolve it, and as
    I've said, I think it's irrelevant.  
    
    	db
    

    RE: .86

    Easy Dave, you're starting to sound kind of serious about this.  I
    didn't mean to attack you personally, I was just enjoying the debate.
    You know the funny thing about all this?  It's starting to sound more
    and more like we're in violent agreement...   8^)
    
    And in all honesty, I didn't get into this discussion originally to
    combat your opinion, simply to state my own.  (Notice that I read and
    didn't participate in the same discussion in MUSIC, because I thought
    it was getting a little overly emotional).  I do appreciate your
    opinions, I like to hear the other side of the argument too.  

    You are absolutely correct in saying that the "next step" is something
    totally subjective.  I think you misread my intention in what I was
    saying about your example though.  I was just trying to say that the
    "next step" that you gave in your example wasn't a (directly) harmful
    effect. 

    The majority of my intention in picking on your example was to show
    that it was not the best one to illustrate your point (which I didn't
    need the example to understand).  Just as my "slavery" example was a
    pretty poor one.  

    >    -< You can't hang me for a crime you think I might commit >-

    Interesting that this is my basic philosophy in this whole discussion!
    (and incidentally, my personal position on the blank tape tax issue). I
    could modify this a bit to say "You can't hang me for talking about a
    crime that someone might commit".
    
    >Each of us can choose whatever "next step" is convenient to our
    >position. 
    
    But, face it... The idea in a debate is to pick your examples to
    support your position on the argument. 

    >It's not too hard for me to support the notion that there are
    >also significant steps between labelling and true censorship,
    >such as requiring parental permission to buy certain albums.
    
    Quite true, and a very valid point.  In this particular case, I do not
    consider this direct censorship, as it does not affect me.  I am an
    adult person, I don't need my parents permission for anything.  I am
    more concerned with the type censorship that WILL effect me personally.
    
    Now I know that it could be argued that placing age restrictions on
    material could affect it's availability, since the music industry seems
    feel that the youngsters are the prime buyers of music and target their
    primary selection of output toward them.  But there we're REALLY
    getting into long shot projection.
    
    

    re: .87
    
    What in my note did you take as me being "serious"?  I didn't take
    anything you said as an "attack".
    
    Was it the stuff about "hanging me".
    
    That was an allusion to the "draw the line" stuff.  What I meant
    by it was you can't hang a person for armed burglary because the
    "next step" is murder.   What I'm saying is that it seems unfair
    to try (or penalize me for the next crime rather than the one
    that I actually committed.
    
    	db

    re: .88
    
    Good!  It was mostly the "hanging me" stuff, but the general tone of
    the note struck me as rather, umm...defensive.  Just wanted to clarify
    my intentions.
    
    Greg

    I think that just demonstrates the pratfall of reading things into
    notes: that is, attributing motives and emotions to them.  
    
    I just re-read the note and to me it reads like any other note I've
    written.   I'd like you to read it again with my explanation of the
    hanging example in mind.
    
    I don't want to lecture on noting, but believe me that attributing
    things "behind the words" is a bad idea.  You'll be wrong far more
    often than you're right.
    
    There's a new area of psychology known as "cognitive therapy",
    or how people perceive the actions/words of others.
    
    The whole area is based on the observation that many people have
    an alarming propensity to accept only the most negative interpretation.
    This has been demonstrated to a degree that is statistically rare 
    in psychology experiments. 
    
    I've been reading what I can find about cognition mainly because it
    seems so overwhelmingly demonstrated in notes conflicts.  In fact,
    I have a friend who may use this as his doctoral thesis.
    
    Bottom line: Don't read behind the words.  Being human, we all have
    a natural tendency to do that, but no ability to do it accurately.
    
    	db

    I just reread your note (.86 I think it was) and now that it's been a
    few days and out of the context of the original conversation (in my
    mind at least), I can see your point.  I didn't see the same thing I
    thought I did the first time.
    
    But if you read my response, I was just trying to be sure that you
    didn't misinterpret what I'd written as a personal attack.  So, in
    essence I was trying to prevent the kind of pratfall which .90 talks
    about.
    
    Face it, verbal or non-verbal, face-to-face or not, there *will* be
    misunderstandings.  That's part of being human and trying to
    communicate with other humans.  (and about half the fun...  :-)
    
    Greg

    > But if you read my response, I was just trying to be sure that you
    > didn't misinterpret what I'd written as a personal attack. 
    
    Such things really ought to be done via MAIL.
    
    No one likes to publicly accused/suggested/implied of loosing their cool,
    especially when it's not the case.  That is almost like an attack.
    
    I'd much rather reply to a mail message with "no, we're cool", but
    when you do it in the conference I feel sorta obligated to prove
    that you had misinterpreted me.
    
    	db

    
    	That's great!!
    
    	Just don't tell my father about the "CD's in the microwave"
    	idea, or I'll be out about $1100!!
    
    	8^)
    
    							GTI
    

                pete, thanks  for  telling  us it was obviously a
                joke, i thought  it was serious until i read your
                following note!!!
                
                - rob whos message is 'obviously a joke' -
                
                and i'm not setting  myself  up  for  some 'maybe
                it's not so obvious jokes -
                
                ... shawn ...
                

    To reply upon earlier notes:
    
    First of all, I have to say that letter was brilliant.  I have printed
    it and sent a copy to all my friends.  Maybe one to Tipper as well...
    
    Anyway, to refer to some earlier notes: .80 or so.
    One reason for movie censorship is because of the graphic intentions of
    movies.  When you go to see Friday the 13th, someone is going to get
    their head chopped off, and it's not going to be pretty.
    I remember as a child seeing the movie Salem's Lot.  As a child, that
    movie really scared me and I slept with my head covered under a
    sleeping bag worrying about ghosts for about 2 months in the summer.  A
    sleeping bag in the summer isn't comfortable sleeping either.
    That's why the movies are censored, because you have actual visual
    images.
    
    To censor music would be ridiculous.  I have never had to turn off a
    song because it scared me or was so disgusting and gross that I
    couldn't listen to it.  Stephen King's novels are more frightening than
    any tape I've ever heard, and I've never once heard anyone thinking of
    banning a Stephen King novel.  In fact, they're all best sellers!!
    
    That has to say something about this cause right there.  Also, I don't
    see how groups like the PMRC can have a valid point to want to ban
    music (or whatever they want) because it makes people do things.
    I have never once wanted to actually shove my fist up someone's anus
    because of the song "Fist F*ck" by Dr. Know.  I have never wanted to
    kill a baby or my mother because of a Metallica album.  (I've wanted to
    kill my mother for other reasons, but that's for another topic)
    I have never wanted to rape a woman after I saw the inside of the Guns
    and Roses album (Appetite for Destruction).
    
    Therefore, how do these groups get off saying that these albums are
    detrimental to our kids and society?  It doesn't make sense to me.
    
    It goes back to the old saying which we've all heard a thousand times:
    If he told you to jump off the Empire State Building, would you?
    That pretty much says it all.
    
    Also, books have even been banned from schools because of their
    content.  Such as "Catcher in the Rye" and other great novels.  Of
    course a lot of this happened in the South, which I will forever hate
    because everytime I think of it, I think of southern, catholic,
    conservative mothers, and that would absolutely kill me.  
    
    I think if more people started looking out for themselves and their 
    children, (and LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!) instead of ignoring the problems 
    that turn up right under their noses, things would be whole hell of a lot 
    better, and there would be a lot less for everyone else to worry about. 
                      

    I forgot to add in reference to the Union Leader letter:
    
    Before the show, while waiting in line, we were handed a piece of paper
    with the Devil's face on it preaching about our "love for blood".
    As it turns out, it was just some ridiculous nonsense about religion
    and how we could still be "saved".
    
    During the show, a plane flew over head flashing a message on it's
    underside that read "God loves you"
    
    Towards the end of the show, the plane flew over again with the
    message:  "God still loves you"
    
    All I could do was laugh.  To think that the people of Manchester,
    besides everywhere are so closed-minded to think that 10,000 people
    were all gathered here to be filled with Satanic messages...
    
    What is this world coming to!!  God help THEM!!

    
    	100 replies!!
    
    							GTI
    

    
    Well, this weekend I ALMOST sympathised with the PMRC when, in my
    local record shop, I found the most physically sickening record 
    cover I have ever seen. It was by a band called Carcass and featured
    a montage of photo's that must have come from a military medical
    book - "Landmine Injuries and How to Treat Them" or something.
    
    Surely there has to be a case for censoring stuff like that. OK,
    no one has to buy the record (probably crap anyway), but you can't
    exactly miss seeing the thing as you flick through the 'C' section.
    
    Paul
    ----

    > Also, I don't see how groups like the PMRC can have a valid point to 
    > want to ban music (or whatever they want) because it makes people do 
    > things.
    
    The PMRC does NOT want to ban music, and they don't claim that it
    makes people "do things".
    
    They want to put labels on records that contains material that no
    small amount of people think is inappropriate for children of a
    certain age.
    
    Every parent, including parents who may enjoy heavy metal music,
    can probably identify a few things that THEY feel is inappropriate
    for young children.
    
    Whereas the PMRC is NOT actively telling anyone what they think
    is appropriate and what isn't, I can point to numberous examples
    in debates such as these where anti-labelling folks are rather clearly
    attempting to tell the PMRC what is and isn't appropriate for their
    kids.
    
    Who is inflicting whose views on whom?
    
    > I have never wanted to kill a baby or my mother because of a
    > Metallica albums.
    
    This is irrelevant because the PMRC hasn't said that listening to
    albums will make you "do bad things".
    
    However, even so, there's a rather severe flaw in your logic.
    
    While some folks HAVE suggested that listening to certain kinds
    of music influences you to do bad things, and have said these
    kinds of things for a larger variety of reasons including getting
    people not to buy them, to deal with the guilt of an offspring having
    committed suicide, and even to get a lighter sentence for a crime,
    no one has said that listening to these records will cause any person
    to do bad things.
    
    Thus that you can listen to these records and not kill babies is nice
    to here, but it doesn't establish that no one can be influenced into
    doing bad things.
    
    I'll state it directly:
    
    	I fully believe that one can be influenced into doing bad things
    	by exposure to things like music, TV, movies, and EVEN books!
    
    HOWEVER... when that happens, the problem is NOT with the music, film,
    tv program or book.  The problem is with the person and we can't
    ban things with legitimate uses just because they may serve as a
    catalyst that evokes a bad response from an unstable person.
    
    So let's stop denying that such influence is impossible.  I think
    it clearly is (you don't think the guy who shot Reagan was influenced
    by "Taxi Driver"????).  Let's instead recognize that when such a thing
    happens that it is NOT the fault of influence, it's the fault of the
    person.
    
    	db
    	db

    Hey Dave,
    	My problem with groups like P.M.R.C. is the same problem
    that I have with Senator Helms' crusade to stop funding art
    that is considered by his task force (or whatever organized
    group it is that controls such things) to be obscene or offensive.
    The problem is that these actions will result in a stifling of
    many artists' creativity; a direct result of a cut off of cash to
    the artists. When that happens, some artists are undoubtedly going
    to make their art 'safer', they have to make a living.
    I'm not saying that some bands don't go a bit too far, considering
    their audiences, but that's the exception, not the norm.
    	I just think people, like Frank Zappa, get uptight about
    the P.M.R.C. for that reason, and I don't blame them, it's a form
    of censorship.
    
    /Motorbreath

    re: .104
    
    I think the PMRC and this Helms things are two very different things.
    
    But I will comment about the Helms thing.
    
    This is the inevitable result of government funding of art.  The
    government gets to decide what art is supported and what isn't.
    
    Frankly, I think your problem is with government funding of art,
    not with Helms.  I don't think his objection to having taxpayers
    money spent on things that taxpayers find objectionable is any
    more unreasonable than the reaction you might have if your
    tax dollars were spent on something you didn't like.
    
    If art is going to be paid for via tax payers dollars than it
    seems entirely reasonable that the art be held accountable to
    the whims of the taxpayers, and thus Helms protest is a perfectly
    valid protest.
    
    		db

    So what you're saying is that whoever is paying the bills gets to
    choose what they want to buy...right?
    
    Well, in that case, I'd like to stop government funding for weapons,
    because they offend me.  I'd like to stop funding for George Bush and
    Dan Quayle because they offend me.
    
    And along that line, I would also like Tipper Gore to stop telling the 
    public what she and her group of religious bimbos think is offensive to
    me.  If they want to pay for a WASP album, and don't like it, well then
    they can throw it away.  If I want to buy one and I can't because
    someone is yelling at me because they think it is offensive and there
    are stickers all over it saying that it is offensive and what not, well
    I don't want to hear it because THEY offend me.
    
    As a side note...isn't Tipper funded through government money? 
    Directly or indirectly?
    
    Lastly, the government doesn't support record labels, so the government
    should stay out of it.
    
    If Axl wants to tell me that he's fu*kin innocent, and I want to listen
    to him, well that's fine.  I don't need someone to tell me that he's
    going to tell me that, and I might not want to hear it.
    
    I also don't think that artists should be told what they should and
    should not do, because that is what it boils down to.  I'm sure some
    people find the naked statues offensive, but no one says anything. 
    It's all politics, and politics suk!!
    
    Steve

    re.106
    I agree... I thought the point of the govt. of this free
    country funding art was to enable artists to do what they want,
    founder creativity, and the advancement of the arts in this country.
    My point (about the art thing) is that it's a free country, and
    who decides what is or isn't obscene? Who is this spokesman
    for the average American taxpayer? I, myself, would support
    controversial art over paintings of fruit baskets, simply because
    it's interesting, raises eyebrows, offends occasionally, disturbs,
    gets your mind involved, MAKES YOU THINK.
    	When someone starts deciding FOR YOU what's obscene or
    not obscene, that's not complete freedom, is it? It's the 
    outer fringe of censorship. In the case of albums, parents 
    ought to have taught their kids what is right or wrong, and
    if they were involved more in their kids lives, they'd KNOW
    what they were listening to, or would see potential problems
    in their lives.
    
    /Motorbreath

    What a mouth full.  I totally agree.  Censorship is a form of
    communism. - just my opinion - Kim

    Actually, Kim, censorship has nothing to do with Communism.
    Socialism, maybe.
    
    Just wanted to clear that up.
    
    Steve

>    So what you're saying is that whoever is paying the bills gets to
>    choose what they want to buy...right?
    
    Wrong.  I'm saying that whoever is paying the bills has a right
    to a voice in what his tax dollars get spent on, just as you have
    your right to protest spending on weapons.
    
>    And along that line, I would also like Tipper Gore to stop telling the 
>    public what she and her group of religious bimbos think is offensive to
>    me.  
    
    She has a right to tell the public what she thinks just as you do.
    
    
    > If I want to buy one and I can't because someone is yelling at me 
    > because they think it is offensive and there are stickers all over 
    > it saying that it is offensive and what not, well I don't want to 
    > hear it because THEY offend me.
    
    You have a right not to listen to them.  You don't have the right
    to prevent them from saying what they want to say.  That, ironically,
    IS censorship.
    
    Tipper Gore and the PMRC has proposed nothing that would prevent
    you from buying any album you want.  Having a label on an album
    does not prevent you or anyone from buying the album.
    
    These labels are not like the motion picture codes (R, X, etc.)
    which are TRULY censorship.
    
    There are groups that advocate true censorship, and naturally
    they are for labels, but the PMRC is not one of them and you can't
    fault them for any fanatics that happen to agree with them for
    entire different reasons.
    
>    As a side note...isn't Tipper funded through government money? 
>    Directly or indirectly?
    
    Neither.  The PMRC is funded through private donation.
    
>    Lastly, the government doesn't support record labels, so the government
>    should stay out of it.
    
    Well, I don't know what your basis is for saying the government doesn't
    support labels, but there is general agreement on BOTH sides INCLUDING
    THE PMRC, that the government should create any laws that mandate
    labelling.
    
>    I also don't think that artists should be told what they should and
>    should not do, because that is what it boils down to. 
    
    Tipper Gore and the PMRC are not telling artists what they should
    and should not do.  They are suggesting to parents what they should
    and should not buy for their children.  They certainly are not
    even "telling" parents what to buy, only alerting them to material
    which some parents might find inappropriate.
    
    You really do not have an accurate picture about what the PMRC is,
    and what they are doing.  You are associating them with your own
    image of  religious fanatics.
    
    I am against labelling, but I'm not going to yell wolf while pointing
    at something that has the appearence of a sheep.  
    
    There are better methods of arguing against labelling than to make
    provably false accusations about the opposition.

    Actually, I do have a pretty accurate view (at this point) about the
    PMRC.  I just interpret their actions differently.
    
    You say that the PMRC doesn't tell the artists what to do, but because
    of the way that our society works, money talks and bull$hit walks.  If
    you have a bunch of whiny mothers that don't let their kids buy G&R's
    Appetite for Destruction (as an example), then the album sales would
    decrease dramatically, wouldn't you say?  When the album sales
    decrease, the record labels say to Axl, "Listen, if you don't tone down
    these lyrics, then you are out of a job."  So, Axl has to censor his
    own creativity, therefore leaving us with an album that doesn't have
    the passion or the feeling of previous works.  Axl could complain all
    he wanted about his creativity, but when it comes down to the cash, he
    doesn't have two words in the matter.
    
    So actually, it is censorship.  However you want to say it, that's what
    it is.  
    
    When I said that government had no part in record labels I meant the
    record companies, not the little stickers.  Which changes everything
    about what I said.
    
    Also, when I mentioned Tipper's funding, I was saying that she is
    funded by her hubby's check, which comes from us...but that really
    doesn't matter.
    
    I think that's all I have to say now.
    
    Steve

    re: . 107  
    
    To Mr. Minardi,
    
    Are you prepared to tell me you are willing to have tax dollars
    given to me to do WHATEVER I want as long as I call it art?
    
    Do you think that there is no form of artistic expression I can
    come up with that you would deny me your tax dollars for?
    
    	db

    Just out of curiosity, what exactly does the government fund as far as
    art goes?  Like, private artists, or art schools or companies or what?
    
    Steve

    re: .111
    
    Steve (Goldsmith),
    
    Do you think boycotts are a valid form of protest?  Is it censorship?
    
    If people stop buying G&R because a bunch of "whiny mothers"  decide
    it's bad for their kids, how is that censorship? 
    
    If I can't buy baby seal fur because some "whiny liberals" are
    boycotting any store that sells it, is that also censorship.
    Isn't that inflicting their moral views on me?
    
    Censorship is when you deny the public access even when there 
    is demand.  When there is no demand for certain records because
    the public won't buy them any more, that is NOT censorship, that's
    how the free market works.  We'll only produce it, if there are
    people around to buy it.
    
    Do you acknowledge that people have a right to use market pressure
    such as boycotts to attempt to stop products they don't like.
    
    And btw, the PMRC has not called for any boycott, and they have
    not taken any action to reduce the production or availability
    of any particular kind of material.
    
    	db
    

    re .112
    
    	Dave, if the government believes in funding art to foster its
    growth and development in this country, then it should understand
    that every piece isn't going to appeal to every person.
    There is famous art of dead animals (used to be as common as
    atmospheric religious paintings), that would probably offend 
    certain taxpayers, there is religious art that would probably
    scare or offend certain taxpayers, art of battles that would...
    you get my point, and I'm talking about famous artists and famous
    work I'VE seen.
    	Can you really sit there and tell me that you think that a 
    government official/group/agency (which is usually comprised of
    old farts/fartettes) can sit down and decide for YOU what is
    offensive/obscene or not? You are NOT getting my point. Art is
    a creative process, where the hell would we be now if a govt.
    had the ability to control or influence artists???
    
    Aren't classic nudes (statues/paintings) offensive to some people?
    
    Please Dave, tell me what taxpayer agrees with everything that
    his taxes fund. I'd love to know. 
    My point is that the government can NOT tell me what is obscene
    or not. In a free society with a culture as diverse as ours, what
    person is going to speak for all taxpayers?
                       
    	Art is supposed to push boundaries, not stay within them.
    
    	So, YES, I AM saying that unless the art HARMS people, that
    I support funding for it. Also keep in mind that this whole
    argument regards art that is "obscene" not funding of artists that 
    you may or may not consider talented, which is what your  opening
    sentence suggested.
    
    /Motorbreath

    
    	Okay Mr. Blickstein, 
    You DON'T see a difference between a group trying to control
    artists, supposedly attempting to PROTECT people from something
    that has NEVER been conclusively proven to harm anyone (heavy
    metal music in particular, other forms in general) and
    the SLAUGHTERING of baby seals, or boycotting a tuna company
    because it decimates dolphins by the hundred with every net
    it pulls up?
    
    	I DO SEE A DIFFERENCE THERE.
                
    Kind of a ridiculous analogy, isn't it?
    
    /Motorbreath

    
    	I read something Frank Zappa wrote...about parents not wanting to
    take the responsibility of bringing up a child.  It was something along
    the lines of 'instead of parents having to worry about what their kids
    listen to/watch, they can aerobicise(sp) more'.
    
    	I think more people got hurt by the fumes created at an infamous
    record burning than by the actual music ("hey, this stuff SMELLS when
    you burn it!!!").  The only way an Ozzy album could hurt me is if
    someone threw it at me.
    
    
    							Lf

    Thanks, Mike.  I was just going to comment on Blick's little analogy
    there.  Records and seals do not mix.  There is no comparison.  Try
    again.
    
    Steve

    Sorry, Dave.  No offense intended.  I just didn't know your name.
    
    S

    I think you guys (Steve, Mike) are misperceiving what Dave is saying
    here.  He's not in favor of record labelling any more than you or I
    are.  He's just trying to get you to think about what you're saying
    about it and your arguments against it a little more so that our
    defense will be more solid.
    
    While it's real nice to have Frank Zappa go into the infamous
    congressional (intentional lower case) hearing and blast the PMRC, it
    really didn't help the cause any since, for all his flowery speech, his
    basic argument wasn't strong.  It was nothing more then a personal
    attack, kind of like kids on a playground:
    
    kid1: "You need to study more because you failed your last test"
    kid2: "oh yeah, well...you're ugly!"
    
    I guess what I'm saying cut Dave a little slack, he's not really trying
    to get on your case.
    
    Dave, I'm surprised you'll still argue this point after all the crap
    you went through in MUSIC notes on the same subject.  :-)
    
    Personally, I am against the government funding anything that doesn't
    directly require government intervention.  This includes art, welfare,
    and protecting me or my (future) children from listening to something
    potentially offensive.  Basically, I believe that the purpose of the
    government has been totally blown out of proportion in this country.  I
    am a firm believer in a minimal government and the US government is a
    fat bloated monster which has become totally inefficient and
    ineffective because it has it's hands in too many pies.  If it were to
    do only the things it's required to do, perhaps it could do a better
    job of them.
    
    Greg

    I don't really mean to be giving Dave a hard time, it's just hard to
    make adjustments between the SOAPBOX and this conference.  I have to
    remember to turn the flame off.  ;^}
    
    S
    
    ...just kind of a hard time...right Mike?

    Mr. Minardi (I don't know your first name, excuse the formality),
    
    I think your reply amply demonstrates the problems in government
    funding of art.
    
    BTW, it's not even just a question of "offensive" art, there will
    always be folks who disagree on what IS art.
    
    If you really "mean" it, as you imply, there is NO kind of art
    you would deny funding to.  You would HAVE to accept, as you ask
    Helms to do, that there are some forms of stuff that you don't
    think is art, but will have accept that you pay for anyway.
    
    If an artist makes his dough from government money by taking
    pictures of dogshit, or by taking pictures of gang rapes,
    or "road kills" or whatever, you are willing to accept that
    while YOU may think it is art, you have to accept that as long
    as others do, you have to pay for it.
    
>    	Can you really sit there and tell me that you think that a 
>    government official/group/agency (which is usually comprised of
>    old farts/fartettes) can sit down and decide for YOU what is
>    offensive/obscene or not? You are NOT getting my point.
    
    I think the paragraph reveals that you are fighting windmills.
    
    The PMRC nor the Helms have advocated any group which will decide
    for people what is and isn't offensive.
    
    > Art is supposed to....
    
    I'm glad that you and Senator Helms have strongly held views about
    what art is supposed to be.  The problem is that both of you insist
    that yours is the ONLY correct view and that's why we have problems
    like this, and that is why there are problems when the government
    funds art.
    
    	db

    Mr. Minardi and Mr. Goldsmith,
    
>    You DON'T see a difference between a group trying to control
>    artists,
    
    I don't see a group trying to control artists.
    
    > and the SLAUGHTERING of baby seals, or boycotting a tuna company
    > because it decimates dolphins by the hundred with every net
    > it pulls up?
    
>    Kind of a ridiculous analogy, isn't it?
    
    Aha! I'm sure it seems that way because you hadn't guessed the point I was
    leading you to:
    
    The issue is not seals vs. artistic freedom.  The issue is freedom
    of expression and protest.
    
    It's rather clear that the difference you draw is based on the
    importance of those issues TO YOU.
    
    You view trying to control artists as being more abhorent than
    the slaughter of seals and dolphins.  And you view "fighting
    obscenity" to be significantly less valid than seals or dolphins
    or artists.
    
    Well, I personally agree with that.  Is that a surprise?  (If so,
    as Greg pointed out, you're  not listening).
    
    Where is our difference then?
    
    Our difference is that only because you disagree with them, you denigrate
    their right to legal forms of protest (boycotts) and I do not.
    
    I don't think someone who boycotts to protest obscenity has
    any less right to do so than someone who boycotts for baby seals 
    or dolphins.
    
    The irony of it is that it is YOUR position advocates a form of
    censorship.   You object to their right to legal protest which
    is a freedom of expression.
    
    	db

    Well, I don't know about that.
    
    As a matter of fact, I do care very much about the slaughtering of
    dolphins, seals, etc...  And do engage in protesting that act.
    
    However, slaughtering dolphins IS NOT necessary or needed in any way,
    while on the other hand, music as a form of art has been deemed a right
    in our society, while the killing of dolphins is not.
    
    So, when people protest music and art, they are in fact infringing on
    the rights of the artist and the partaker in the art in that the
    protests will inhibit the artists professional creativity, in turn
    creating a mild form of censorship which I am opposed to.
    
    Steve

>>         -< Tell us your "approved" list of causes for valid protest >-
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	The discussion WAS on the PMRC, now it's a soapbox discussion...

>>    I don't see a group trying to control artists.
	My point was that if art is controlled, then the artists are
being controlled. If not a group Dave, then what DO you see making
decisions on whether certain art will or will not be funded?
    
>>    The issue is not seals vs. artistic freedom.  The issue is freedom
>>    of expression and protest.
	With the PMRC issue: I don't believe I've ever denied the
right of the PMRC to exist. I stated my disagreement with their
goals/efforts, thus I don't see your comparison with forms of public
protest.
 	With the art funding: No, the main issue to ME is NOT 
freedom of expression precisely. An artist, whether funded by 
the govt. or not is free to create whatever he/she wants. But
if the govt. is going to fund art at all in this free country,
it should allow the artists the same creative freedom, otherwise
it should NOT fund art at all.
    
>>    It's rather clear that the difference you draw is based on the
>>    importance of those issues TO YOU.
	I can't deny that the destroying of living creatures is
more important to me than attempting to control something that has
never been proven to harm anyone. I also never said that the
PMRC didn't have a right to exist. I don't see that that analogy
is applicable at all to the art issue, however.
	
>>    Well, I personally agree with that.  Is that a surprise?  (If so,
>>    as Greg pointed out, you're  not listening).
	Believe it or not Dave, I was actually capable of understanding
your position, I just don't agree with you. Yes, I agree that the
PMRC has a right to lobby for album labelling. I am opposed to it, 
as you are. I don't think you're listening to me either.
    
>>    Where is our difference then?
	Our difference is in that you believe that I don't think
the PMRC has a right to exist, which I never said. 
	Our difference on the art issue is that you think
that we, as taxpayers, shouldn't pay for something that we don't
like, or find offensive, or don't consider art. I believe that
there is no way to objectively decide for all taxpayers what is
offensive art or not, and that if the govt. is going to fund art,
it should allow the artist the same freedom he would have without
the govt.'s funding, or not provide funding at all. There is no
way to decide what is going to offend 'most' taxpayers. Even though
that decision may seem easy for some works, there will always be 
a gray area, and who will consider what art falls into that gray
area to be acceptable to taxpayers or not???
    
>>    Our difference is that only because you disagree with them, you denigrate
>>    their right to legal forms of protest (boycotts) and I do not.
	Where did I say that? 
    No, you're right in that I blurred the line between
the issue/actions of each group, and their right to protest, because
of the emotion you fired up with your seal slaughtering analogy.

>>    The irony of it is that it is YOUR position advocates a form of
>>    censorship.   You object to their right to legal protest which
>>    is a freedom of expression.
	No, my position on the PMRC is simply that I don't agree
with their intentions, or their methods, I never objected to their
right to legal protest, I objected to the comparable worth of their
cause to that of groups offended with the killing of living creatures
without necessary cause.
    
/Motorbreath

    re: .125
    
    This seems very arbitrary.
    
    You have the right to protest seal and dolphin slaughter but not art.
    
    What other things are we not allowed to protest Steve?
    
    Somehow I can't but help think that personal bias is involved here.
    
    That's why I asked you for your list of approved protestable causes.
    I don't think anyone's personal bias should be used to determine
    what is valid to protest.  That CERTAINLY is censorship.
    
    (BTW, I don't think that seal fur is any less "necessary" than
    heavy metal or any other particular kind of music.  The world would 
    go on without either.)
    
    I should be able to protest anything I want as long as I don't
    infringe on anyone's rights.
    
    I think there's any substantiation to the claim that protesting art is
    an infringement on an artists rights.  I am certainly not "inhibiting
    his creativity" because he is  free to create anything he wants.  I
    don't think it's a violation of his rights to attempt to influence his
    market in ways he may not like.  If that were so, then boycotts in
    general are a violation  of rights.

    > I never objected to their right to legal protest, I objected to the 
    > comparable worth of their cause to that of groups offended with 
    > the killing of living creatures without necessary cause.
    
    Do you acknowledge their right to try and eliminate heavy
    metal music by influencing people to stop buying it?
    
    In .104 you point out that labels are a means that could be
    used to achieve stifle artists creativity by bringing market
    pressure on them to sanitize their lyrics.
    
    Do you accept then that that would NOT violate artists rights,
    even if it doesn't make it any more palatable?
    
    If so, then we definitely have had a misunderstanding.  I got
    the distinct impression that you felt that was a violation of rights.
    
    It seems that you and I (but not Steve) agree on the other issue 
    that our personal notions of "comparable worth" (as you call it) 
    of causes have no bearing on the righteousness of legal protest.
    
    	db

    
>>    Do you acknowledge their right to try and eliminate heavy
>>    metal music by influencing people to stop buying it?
	Yes, and I still have no idea where you got the notion
that I didn't. I have blasted the PMRC, I have never said that
the group didn't have the right to exist. 
    
>>    In .104 you point out that labels are a means that could be
>>    used to achieve stifle artists creativity by bringing market
>>    pressure on them to sanitize their lyrics.
>>    Do you accept then that that would NOT violate artists rights,
>>    even if it doesn't make it any more palatable?
	Again, where do you get the impression that I believe that
labelling violates artists' rights? You seem to be confusing this 
matter with someone you have previously argued this with, or
otherwise feel that you have a great point here and have to drive
it home, regardless...

>> I don't think anyone's personal bias should be used to determine
>> what is valid to protest. That CERTAINLY is censorship.
	Well Dave, you now seem to be saying nearly the same thing
that I was about who would be determining what govt.-funded
art we (as taxpayers) should, or should not be allowed to see.
	I agree with you completely. I use this same logic in
my argument against the PMRC. Fine. They want to label, but
when they say that the music is harmful, that's when I feel their
personal bias is getting in the way of any objective points they
may have raised. I oppose that.
    
>>    If so, then we definitely have had a misunderstanding.  I got
>>    the distinct impression that you felt that was a violation of rights.

agreed.    

/Motorbreath

    No.  I did not say that the PMRC could not protest music.  They can
    protest and bit*h and moan all they want about the music.  I don't care
    if they build a house on the front lawn of the White House and sit all
    day with a megaphone talking about how bad rock music is.  It would be
    boring and annoying as hell, but I don't care.  
    
    Obviously I have a bias or I wouldn't be sitting here, much as you are 
    debating this with you.  You have a bias as well.  You feel that there is 
    no problem with what the PMRC is doing.  Great.  There's your bias.  Mike 
    doesn't like the methods, etc... of the PMRC.  That's his bias.
    
    The problem I have with the PMRC is that they are influencing
    government action into the labelling of records.  When the government
    passes a law or whatnot that records should be labelled, then that is
    your censorship.  Right there, plain and simple.  CENSORSHIP.  Worse
    thing of all is that it would be censorship of a RIGHT given to us by
    our founding fathers over 200 years ago.
    
    That just goes to show, as well, that you missed my points as well.  Go
    ahead and protest anything you like.
                     

    re: .129
    
    I never had the impression that you denied their right to exist.
    
    Let me explain the history of this debate, both here and in MUSIC.
    
    Anyway, here's my recollection:
    
    Many people, perhaps not you, have charged that labelling while not
    a form of censorship in and of itself, boils down to censorship because
    some stores might not carry labelled records.
    
    I claim while that that scenario would be very unfortunate if it
    happened, it is NOT censorship.   It is a store responding to
    the market.   If some group wanted to try and eliminate the market
    for heavy metal music, that does NOT violate anyone's rights and
    is not censorship.
    
    Note, the PMRC does not have any such stated goal and in fact, and
    while they express their displeasure that folks are producing and
    buying that kind of music, they have done nothing to prevent folks
    who want to do that from doing so.
    
    You are probably right in that I am confusing you with someone else.
    
    In fact, I'm probably confusing you with EVERYONE else because most
    of the people who have debated me claim that this is a form
    of censorship.
    
    Since in these debates it's usually me vs. almost everyone else,
    it's hard for me to keep track of who said what.  Hope you
    understand.
    
    	db

> You feel that there is no problem with what the PMRC is doing.  
    
    Wrong.
    
>    The problem I have with the PMRC is that they are influencing
>    government action into the labelling of records.  
    
    Wrong.  They are not.  
    
    > When the government passes a law or whatnot that records should be 
    > labelled, then that is your censorship.  
    
    Wrong.  
    
    It's a moot point since the PMRC have not advocated passing any laws
    but it would be censorship when the government passes a law that 
    prohibits you from making or buying something.  
    
    If putting a label on something is censorship, then I suppose
    cigarrette warnings, food content labels, and poison control
    warnings are all censorship.
    
    Perhaps I have missed things you've said, but you are debating your
    own notion of what the PMRC is doing, not what they are ACTUALLY
    doing.
    
    	db

    
    I finnaly got to see some of the trial on tape.  Actually, I have
    to agree with db now.  The PMRC isn't trying to eliminate anything,
    all they are trying to do is what we've been doing to movies for
    God knows how long now, a rating system.  They are following a belief
    that some albums shouldn't be listened to by a 14 year old or whatever,
    or should be bought by the parent instead.  Frank Zappa probably
    did do more harm than good, I'm sorry I flamed someone about that
    before I found out first hand (insert sound of forty lashes here)
    Suprise of the whole thing was Dee Snider.  
    I don't think it's the PMRC we have to worry about, I think it's
    some other group that might take advantage of the situation the
    PMRC creates through labeling.  But like I said before, I still
    think this thing will backfire with labels, and it will actually
    boost sales of that album instead of declining it.
    
    Mr. Ed...everybody will want labels on their albums!

	Dave Barry - Rock Lyrics constitute commerce with the devil

         <<< HYDRA::DISK$USERPACK02:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DAVE_BARRY.NOTE;1 >>>
                       -<  Dave Barry - Noted humorist  >-
================================================================================
Note 196.0                         Rock Lyrics                           1 reply
USWRSL::MERRELLGR                                    98 lines  15-DEC-1985 15:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		Rock Lyrics constitute commerce with the devil

				by Dave Barry

   [Reprinted without permission from the San Jose Mercury News, Nov 23, 1985]


The way Tipper Gore tells it, the whole thing started last year when she 
bought the record album, "Purple Rain," by Prince. Gore is, needless to say, 
the wife of Sen. Albert Gore, Jr. of Tennessee. It would be virtually 
impossible to be named "Tipper" and *not* be the wife of a U.S. senator. 
Prince, of course, is a short oily person.

Back when this particular incident occurred, Prince was widely considered to 
be the most wondrously talented young musical genius since Mozart, so Tipper 
bought "Purple Rain" and took it home and played it right in her living room 
with her 11-year-old daughter. Wouldn't you absolutely love to have a 
videocassette of that little family scene? Tipper and her daughter, sitting in 
their living room, tapping their feet happily to the music of a person whose 
concept of an artistic statement is to hurl his black, lace, bikini underwear 
to the crowd?

But all went well, Tipper recalls, until Prince got to a song called "Darling 
Nikki," where he sings about self-abuse.

Well. As you can imagine, when Prince made this musical reference to s--- 
a----, Tipper, who has somehow managed to become the mother of four, was 
horrified. She related the incident to her friend Susan Baker, who of course 
is the wife of Treasury Secretary Jim Baker, and it turned out that Susan had 
also had a similar horrible phonographic experience with her daughter. 
Suddenly they realized that this was a widespread problem, with God knows how 
many wives of top federal officials bringing home dirty records and playing 
them for their daughters.

So Tipper and Sandy did what any two, average, everyday, normal, ordinary, 
concerned mothers just exactly like yourself would do: They got the Senate 
Commerce Committee to hold hearings. The fact that they were able to do this 
has nothing to do with the fact that Sen. Gore is on the Commerce Committee. 
The Senate Commerce Committee would be more than happy to hold hearings for 
*you*, too, if for any reason you or your friends ever get upset about 
something. That's why we *have* a Senate Commerce Committee.

At the hearing, the committee heard testimony to the effect that many rock 
songs are about drugs, sex and violence. This of course came as a massive 
shock to the senators, as it would to anybody who has slept the last 30 years 
asleep in a cave on a remote planet.

Susan Baker testified about several disgusting songs that she had learned the 
lyrics to, and concluded that they are probably a causal factor in all these 
unwed-teen pregnancies you read about. Such is the dirtiness of these lyrics 
that a teen-ager can get pregnant just *listening* to them, provided she is 
unwed.

The committee, trying to be fair, also heard from the other side. Testifying 
on behalf of Evil Incarnate was a person named Dee Snider, who writes songs 
for a rock band called Twisted Sister, and who claims there is nothing wrong 
with his lyrics.

Unfortunately, although Snider had put on his best sleeveless black T-shirt, 
his overall personal appearance was nevertheless such that if you hauled him
before any 12 responsible jurors, they would sentence him to death without
asking what the charge was. 

Also testifying on behalf of the rock world was Frank Zappa, who is 
intelligent and very articulate, but who also named his daughter "Moon Unit" 
and once - you can look this up - wrote a song about having sex with a 
rutabaga. So these two witnesses, sincere as they were, failed to make the 
ideal impression, and the Senate Commerce Committee had to agree with Tipper 
and Sandy that "something must be done" about rock music.

The obvious solution, of course, would be to make it illegal for Tipper and 
Sandy to buy record albums without a federal guidance counselor. Unfortunately, 
this would probably violate their constitutional rights. So it looks like
we're going to have kind of voluntary mandatory labeling system similar to
what we have now have with the movies, where "PG," for example, means
"contains scenes where young women take showers that are totally unrelated to
the plot." 

For rock albums, there would be a sticker that would say something like, 
"Warning: Key federal wives have determined that this is disgusting smut," 
which would serve as a warning to parents everywhere.

I support this labeling effort, and I do not think it should be limited to 
current rock songs. I think we should also go back and label older songs, such 
as "Louie Louie," which everybody knows has filthy lyrics. Unfortunately, 
scientists have been unable to determine exactly what they are. All they have 
so far is:

	"Louie, Louie, oh oh;
	 Something something, etc."

Well, I say a nation that is capable of orbiting a U.S Senator is capable of 
determining the words to "Louie Louie," and I think we should make this a high
priority in our overall album-labeling effort. If any of you out there have
decoded this song, I urge you to jot down the dirty lyrics and mail them to
the folks at the Senate Commerce Committee, 508 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. They'll probably want you to include your
name and address. 
================================================================================
Note 196.1                         Rock Lyrics                            1 of 1
ULTRA::OFSEVIT                                        3 lines  16-DEC-1985 09:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	So I was walking down the street and this guy came up to me and asked
me if I'd like to buy a pornographic record.  I told him, no thanks, I didn't
have a pornograph to play it on. 

    
    	Didn't John Denver also testify against the PMRC... I think
    he did.. I remember him on tv...well I sort of remember..after all
    I was too busy smoking a jibbah and beating this unwed teenaged
    mother I picked up in a porn store right after I had finished listening
    to Iron Maiden...in my car...
    
    BK
    

    Yes, Denver did testify and has been a key figure in the fight
    against labels.  His testimony was quite effective in that he
    was someone that folks were willing to listen to.
    
    Dave Barry was sorta right about Dee Snider.  I remember my reaction
    seeing him walk into the room.  He had a torn faded T-shirt, ripped
    and stained jeans, and I think his big toe was sticking out his
    aged sneakers.
    
    I thought, "God, after this guy gets through not only will there
    be labels on rock albums, but all rock musicians will be forced to
    wear scarlet letters".
    
    But see, that was part of what was so effective about his testimony.
    
    Here's a guy who you look at and immediately expect that he's not
    going to have anything intelligent to say, and he comes back and
    surprise everyone by exposing the real issues in a clear, concise
    way, countering every leading question raised by guys like Hollings
    and turning them back against him.
    
    My low expectations rapidly faded into wild enthusiasm and cheering.
    I was almost tempted to go out and buy a  TS record even though I
    remember seeing them in the clubs in the NY/NJ area before they
    got big and thinking "this must be the worst band I've ever seen."
    
    In fact, my friend and I used to refer to as the epitome of no-talent
    bands.  We'd see a bad band and we'd say (facetiously) "well they're
    no Twisted Sister but..."
    
    The way I look at it, he shocked the heck out of Hollings and, frankly,
    (I'm not proud to say it so directly but...) really "showed up" and
    embarressed Hollings.   He was so effective with Hollings that
    Hollings that Hollings really came across as a lightweight with no
    understanding or grounding in constitutional and artistic issues.
    
    I loved it.  I wish I had it on tape, but at least I have the
    transcript.
    
    	db

    I don't remember where I saw this...maybe it was in here...
    
    Donny Osmond was also saying that he hopes they don't label records
    because all his records would be rated 'G', and for movies, a 'G'
    rating is suicide for any big movie.
    
    How many people would have seen Back to the Future or whatnot if it had
    a 'G' rating?  How many people would buy an album with a 'G' rating?  
    
    That brings up another argument...everyone is going to make nastier
    records so that they can get a better rating.  :-)
    
    Steve

    I would have. I saw Peter Pan twice. (The first time with a date.) I
    suppose I have never been too impressed with movie ratings.
    
    the soon_dead_devil_dog
    
    
    (SDDD) (tm)

    Not being mean but,I think the PMRC is a bunch of old farts who
    doesn't have anything better to do.They think they can tell people
    what to listen to,Who's a bad influance,They should label records.
      I think people should keep thier nioses out of other people's
    bussiness that doesn't concern them.They want labels on Heavy Metal
    records?How about country,Jazz,Pop,in anthor words,What about the
    rest of the music field.Just because H.M is different doesn't mean
    they're bad influances.
      I heard some where,where a preist is making a big deal out of
    the fact that H M influances Satantism.That's a bunch of BULL!!I
    argree some muscains like King Dimond is an infulances.His songs
    are said to include on how to do the stuff they do!That doesn't
    mean you label everyone.Like this bull about Ozzy being
    "santanic,causing soacidedal tendency,etc,etc,"what crap.
     I have a question to those who believe the same thing as the PMRC
    does about Ozzy.When you were a teen.Did you ever get into Black
    Sabbath?If so,NEWS FLASH!!!!Ozzy was lead singer!!!what makes him
    any worse than when he was with Sabbath?In my opinion,Ihink he changed
    for the better.
     Getting back to this(um ah) labeling thing.Some even think,(point
    blank)it is the cause of half the worlds problems!Like robbies,rapes,
    killings,drugs,alchol,<should i 
    

    	RE: -1
    	>"santanic,causing soacidedal tendency,etc,etc,"what crap.
 	  ^^^^^^^^ 

    	No way!!  Ozzy belonged to a Santana fan club?!  (; (;
        
    	Tigga~~~

    
    	RE: .139
    
    	Somehow, I'd tend to doubt that jazz has alot of "Satanic
    	lyrics".
    
    	RE: all
    
    	Rolling Stone has an article in the new issue, dealing with
    	labeling/censorship/etc.  Some stores have voluntarily agreed
    	to label certain records (deemed "offensive" by a panel of
    	reviewers, and said to be "law") as offensive in a specific
    	manner such as:
    
    
    
    	"The following record may be considered offensive for one or
    	more of the following: violence, sexually explicit material,
    	bestiality, sodomy" and other stuff I can't remember.
    
    	I'll bring it in if I remember ... or if someone has the new
    	RS, could they transcribe the warning label?  Thanks.
    
    							GTI
    

    
    	Addendum to my .141:
    
    	The sale of the records bearing these warning labels is lim-
    	ited to those who are 18+ years old.
    
    							GTI
    

    The fact that thePMRC want to label the records,are beyound me.call
    me crazy,but isn't labeling records a violation of our consititual
    rights?They say that heavy metal is a bad influance.BAD INFLUANCE!!You
    want bad influances let's talk about Rap,Let's talk about Country.My
    point?Not just Heavy Metal is a "bad"influance.
     Let's break down what they realy want .(sounds like a Donaue
    show.Huh?)They say it causes kids to comite suiside.(Maybe the kid
    had other promblems?)It causes kids to worship the devil(I'm not
    a satan worshiper,but don't you think it's his/her right to?)
     What I'm trying to say is,If they label records,not only will they
    violate our rights as humans,they will also disgriminate agaisnt
    a religin.So if they want to label records,check what your doing
    before you start disgriminating.
     We should try this.Let them label the records.Make the music stores
    force the 18+ rule,for one month.Then after a month see if anything
    changed.You want to change the world?Fix want's on the street before
    anything else!Because if the kids don't hear it on the records,they'll
    sure as heck hear it on the street.The drugs& alchol?Same thing,but
    look in your home first.For insents,Thier's a commercial on tv were
    a kid is in his room,and his father is tring to find out who taught
    him to do drugs.Did the kid say"Gee dad.I heard how to from my Ozzy
    record."NO!!He said"I learned it from you!"So watch what you say(PMRC)
    before you start raising concerferce.
                                            
                         From some one who is fed up with PMRC
    

re: last few

For what its worth, the PMRC does not want to label just heavy metal records, 
but *any* record that it believes is offensive (including rap and rock and 
coutry and anything else). Actually, not having kept up wih the arguement that 
well, I'm not even sure that labelling is their goal anymore.....

Musician Magazine had a very good editorial in the March issue about a proposed 
law in Pennsylvania. Interesting reading, which I'll post if I remember to 
bring it in......

alan

P.S. Tigga, I was dyin' when I read that! Santana fan club! agagagagaga!!!!

    
    >The fact that thePMRC want to label the records,are beyound me.call
    >me crazy,but isn't labeling records a violation of our consititual
    >rights?
    
    
    	No, the actual labelling of the records isn't violating any-
    	one's constitutional rights.  They're just informing you of
    	the possibility of "offensive material" contained therein.
    
    	The banning of the sale of these records to minors (<18) is
    	a debatable subject however ... but there aren't a whole lot
    	of laws designed to let minors decide things for themselves.
    
    							GTI
    

    
    	This is how Missouri and Oklahoma would like to word their
    	label:
    
    	WARNING: may contain explicit lyrics descriptive of or ad-
    	vocating one or more of the following: nudity, satanism,
    	suicide, sodomy, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, adult-
    	ery, murder, morbid violence or deviate sexual conduct in
    	a violent context, or the illegal use of drugs or alcohol.
    	PARENTAL ADVISORY.
    
    							GTI
    

    
    So Parents, now you've been advised, stay away from this music!
    I'll listen to it for ya. :^)
    
    One more thing: Did you know that sodomy is illegal in some states,
    and punishable by law? Amazing what people do these days!
    Spaceknight
    

    
    Watch out guys!  We all might be eating Dr. Righteous Fried Chicken,
    soon!
    
    J.

    Did any of you guys get to watch Donohue yesterday?  
    
    Are these guys out of their minds or what?  Did you hear the guy that
    got arrested for selling someone an album with explicit lyrics (a store
    owner in Alabama).. the guy that bought the album went and blew someone
    away.. and the store owner got convicted for the crime?
    
    CJ

    
    
    Twisted thinking!!  That makes no sense what's so ever!!  So, what
    happened to the guy that did the actual shooting.  I can't believe that
    actually happened.  So, the store owner is going to jail for killing
    someone.  Excuse me but, that F*cked!! - Kim

Actually, I think the guys blew his own head off, and the wife sued 
the store owner.  He was convicted.

jc

    
    
    Oh, now it makes sense, I guess it's still twisted thinking if you ask
    me. - Kim

    The people in the PMRC would be much better suited supporting
    a cause much more important than this ridiculous rock-and-roll-is
    rotting-the-minds-of-our-youth bullshi+. Geez, old farts (people
    over 30 ;^) have been saying this since the 50's, it's so old.
    
    	The labelling is ridiculous...why stop at records? How about
    all paperbacks with sexual/satanic references, and dirty words.
    
    Heard this on the radio, and it made me think:
    	This thing is a complete waste of energy. It's ridiculous!
    How many children have become possessed/corrupted by the horrible
    works of Mother Goose... why not label works such as HAMLET...
    all those terrible things are there: suicide, murder, sex, etc. etc.
    
    /Motorbreath...read Hamlet for school, and didn't feel the urge to 
    		snuff myself

	Where's the line? How many C&W hits hint at or discuss adultery?

	What about "A Boy Named Sue"? Is ear-biting permitted?


	I'm gonna sit down and right some real sweaty grindy tunes about
	bicycle pumps. Looks like the 90s will be

	The Inuendo Decade ;-)

    
    
    Yup!  Instead of lettin' them listen to degenerate Rock 'n' Roll,
    I's figurin' I's gonna let my kids, ifIeverhaveany, listen to wholesome
    music; C&W!  Where they can learn about lyin', cheatin', boozin,
    humpin' a hound dawg in the back of a pickup truck, how they kill a
    long haired hippy freak, lyin to the nation about how good American
    made is, womanizing with a honky tonk geeetar, and let them become 
    manic depressives!  All at the same time, whatadeal!
    
    J.

    -1
    
    "kick them off the face of the world"
    
    While I may not like or agree with the PMRC, they'll always be around.
    The sooner one tries to counter their tactics, the better off they'll
    be.  I think it just a realization that there will ALWAYS be an 
    opposing force to anything in life!  trying to get 'rid' of them is 
    an unrealistic view to hold.

    
    	RE: -2
    
    	Egads!  Before you send out that petition, I suggest you
    	take some courses on spelling, grammar and punctuation!
    	
    	(;
    
    	Tigga~~~

    
    	I don't know WHAT to think about the PMRC ... on one hand,
    	I think they're a bunch of useless idiots trying to run
    	others' lives.  On the other hand, they're just trying to
    	keep some of the "negative influences" out of the hands
    	of impressionable youngsters.
    
    	Still, I do have to disagree with being "carded" to buy a
    	"censored" album ... whether an impressionable person is
    	buying it or not.  I can't really come up with a workable
    	compromise right at the moment.
    
    							GTI
    

    Actually I'm kinda tired of all the people crying about how the PMRC is
    trying to run their lives. 

    
    RE: -.1  
    
    Yup!  And I'm tired of people crying about people crying over PMRC!
    8*) x1,000,000,000
    
    J.
    

	I don't like to talk about the PMRC cuz my blood pressure
	shoots through the roof, but I will say one thing - I don't
	like bias in anything and particularly not in a "government
	sponsored" group that is attacking a certain media which I
	happen to enjoy.  

	lb

    
    RE: -.1  Say, "Amen" brethren!
    
    J.

    
    
    	For lack of nothing better to do tonight (I'm suffering from
    	GTI syndrome)  (; (; I'm going to include part of the article
    	called "X Rated" that is devoted to Pop Music.  Yes, I realize
    	it's not all about metal.... but it does provide some "insight"
    	about the PMRC.
    
    	Enjoy.  (;
    
    	
    
    	"There's no message to heavy metal," says Penelope Spheeris,
    	director of a documentary on the music.  "It's about being rich
    	and famous and getting laid."  Nonetheless, metal has taken
    	heat for a decade, with its electrified invitations to head
        banging and hell raising.  Now other groups are taking the
    	flak.  Example:  Guns'n'Roses, the talented but loutish rockers
    	whose album "Appetite for Destruction" has sold almost 9 million
    	copies.  Their song "One in a Million" says, "Police and niggers,
    	that's right, get outta my way./ Don't need to buy none of your
    	gold chains today.../ Immigrants and fagg*ts, they  make no
    	sense to me./ They come to our country and think they'll do
    	as they please,/ Like start some mini-Iran or spread some
    	f***in' disease./ They talk so many goddam ways, it's all
    	Greek to me."
    
    	Gore of PMRC, which is in favor of labeling but not censorship,
    	talks of 14 million children "at risk" and in need of counseling
    	thanks to the "graphic brutality marketed to these kids through
    	music and television."  Lawmakers in 19 states went further;
    	they considered proposing warning labels for any song dealing
    	with such topics as drugs, incest, murder and suicide, which
	would conceivably outlaw depraved worked like "I Get a Kick
    	Out of You," "Die Walkure," "Frankie and Johnny," and "Tosca".
    	The music industry quickly forestalled such legislation by 
    	decreeing that record companies will decide which material is
    	controversial and alert consumers with a label that reads
    	'PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT LYRICS."
    
    	Whatever heavy metal can do to provoke censure, rap can outdo.
    	Whereas metal is mostly suggestive, this urban-black music is
    	often politically or sexually explicit.  N.W.A. (Niggers with
    	Attitudes) won an admonishing letter from the FBI for their
    	song "F*** the Police", in which the singer warns the ghetto's
    	occupying force: "Ice Cub will swarm/ On any Mother F****er
    	in a blue uniform.../ A young nigger on the warpath,/ And when
    	I finish it's gonna be a bloodbath."  Another group, Public
        Enemy, has been charged with anti-Semitism in their lyrics and
    	statements to the press.  But their songs are also critical
    	of blacks who reject their roots, of the brothers and sisters
        too busy partying to see the problem.  P.E.'s new album,
    	"Fear of a Black Planet", qualifies as dance music that is
    	dense music:  soul with a vengeance and the most challenging
    	street art that rap has to offer.
    
    
    	Tigga~~~~
    	
    	                                                      
    	
    	
    	
  

    
Excerpt from IL NEWS #41 06/06/91 - Music Censorship in La.
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL NEWS is a periodic distribution of material on Individual Liberty. 
The original source is always credited.  Except for personal messages,
publication is generally "without permission".  UPI stories are
generally from CLARInet, and may not be redistributed to non-Digital
employees.

Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the editor and are
definitely not meant to be representative of Digital Equipment
Corporation.

==============================================================================




Louisiana House committee OKs record ban for children
5 Jun 91
 
	BATON ROUGE, La. (UPI) -- A House committee approved legislation
Wednesday that would ban selling to children music and videotapes with
offensive lyrics.
	Recording industry representatives say the bill could be
counterproductive, causing companies to quit voluntarily putting
warnings on records, discs and tapes.
	``This bill is about making these trash lyrics off limits to minors,''
said Democratic Rep. Theodore Haik, the bill's sponsor who noted he did
not want to censor music but rather to keep minors away from recordings
with explicit lyrics about sex, violence, crime and suicide.
	An amendment by Democratic Rep. Ralph Miller extended the ban to
include the sale of sexually and criminally suggestive videos.
	Haik pushed a bill through the Legislature last year to require
record labeling, but Gov. Buddy Roemer vetoed it.
	Most music vendors voluntarily label the music that contains explicit
and sexually suggestive lyrics to warn customers of the contents.
	But Michael Cobra of the Recording Industry Association of America
said if the Haik bill becomes law, consumers may see the last of
voluntary record warnings.
	``The industry will not label if it jeopardizes their sales,'' he
said.
	Retailers said they were doing a good job of not allowing minors to
purchase labeled records under the voluntary labeling system.
	The bill now moves to the House floor for more debate.

==============================================================================

    this is **LL**it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    why dont they just start sensoring the vid's then??????????
    
    
    OR BETTER YET why arent the people on stage Yelled at for using
    abusive, etc language????????????
    
    
    			wendy o'
    
    

    
    What do you expect from Louisiana? This is the very same state that's
    trying like hell to outlaw abortion except for rape, incest, etc...
    
    They obviously don't care about rights.
    
    /prc

    There's no try to it.  The ***holes did it!
    
    This is America, right?  Or only if you don't live in Louisiana.
    

    
    	I thought this article in Parenting was a bit interesting
    	and sort of proved the point "we've" been discussing for
    	years.
    
    	Pardon any and all spelling errors. (8
    	
    	tigg~~~
    
    
    
    
    	I recently asked a group of young people to watch a videotape
    	of interviews with some "heavy metal" rock stars, together 
    	with clips from some of their live concerts and music videos.
    	The tape, put out by the Parents' Music Resource Center -- an
    	Arlington, Virginia, group that monitors popular music
    	and music videos -- presented a picture of young men who were
    	deliberately crude, obscene, enthusiastic about drug and
    	alcohol abuse, sexually violent and disdainful of women.
    
    	The students, however, did not respond to the material with
    	the revulion that I had felt.  Even the feminists in the
    	class were more amused than shocked.  Most of the students
    	said that they had never thought about the values conveyed
    	by the music.  More often than not, they said that they did
    	not even listen to the lyrics; when the students did, they
    	thought of them as a joke or as satirical rather than as 	
    	an expression of the singer's true feelings and attitudes.
    
    	For these students, antisocial rock and rap music stars 
    	are clearly not role models.  When we talked about other,
    	more socially responsible musicians, the students did not see
    	them as role models either.  Although younger teenagers often
    	develop strong emotional ties to pop idols, this is more a
    	sign of their newly discovered status as teenagers than it is
    	of any serious identification with, say, Guns and Roses or
    	2 Live Crew.
    
    	A recent Gallup poll of young people reinforces this viewpoint.
    	When asked to name the person they most admired, the majority
    	chose a parent or some other relative.  President Bush was the
    	only nonfamily member among the top-five most admired people
    	for this age group.
    
    	Although most young people see the extreme rock and rap groups
    	as merely a parody of th erroneous adult image of "wild youth",
    	some do identify with such anarchistic performers, and who
    	adopt their vbalues and attitudes, are already troubled and
    	adrift.  These teens are often the victims of neglect, 
    	abandonment, and abuse.  They readily identify with the anger
    	and revellion toward adult society that is expressed by these
    	groups, and such music allows them to vent their resentment
    	of a society that has left them unguided,  uncared for, and
    	unprotected.
    
    	But most young people do not identify wi th or imitate the
    	antisocial language, attitudes, and behavior of these musical
    	groups.  Most teens say that such groups actually paint a 
    	picture of young people that is neither accurate nor fair.
    	"That's not how we look or act," say teens.  "But it's how
    	our parents *think* we look and act."  Although these rock
    	groups are not a menace to the manners and morals of most
    	teens, they do highlight some misperceptions between the
    	generations.
    
    	We need to tell our teenagers that although some of their
    	idols may be wild, loose, and rebellious, we do not apply
    	the same labels to them or to their friends simply because
    	they like these singers or groups.  This approach will 
    	enhance our privileged position as parents--our children's
    	most significant role models.  

At last the penny has dropped for these people.

Keef.

    Yeah... this should cross posted in soapbax to shut the dumb a**holes
    up!
    
    Bonzo

So, does anyone know the node for soapbox?  and what number is the note causing
all the hooohaaa!



GAZ

    GAZ....
    
    HOw ya doin mate!!!
    
    The node info:
    
    			PEAR::SOAPBOX
    
    	As for the note # ?????
    
    Bonzo

    
    
    Just go in there and "set seen" there will be fresh replies in there
    pretty soon anyways!
    
    
    Goddess F.

    
    You can expect some feedback.... 8^)
    
    
    Chris_Their_Favorite_Guy_To_Bash
    
    
    

    BOLLOCKS.
    
    Joe Strummer.
    

    what a totally christmas thing to say!!
    
    
                                     Staynz

    My advise: steer clear of SOAPBOX.
    
    Nothing productive happens in there.  It's 100% ranting and
    mud-slinging.
    
    But if you're into that kind of stuff (some people are), that's
    another story.
    
    	db

    
    Same here.
    
    I love the place.

    
    Now that Tipper is going to be the VP's wife instead of "just" a
    Senator's wife, does that mean that she's going to get nasty
    again, or has she chilled?
    

    
    Bill Clinton is against mandatory stickering. He IS the
    President-Elect, NOT Tipper Gore.
    
    
    

    One can almost hear those Bird licks wailing out of the White House
    now!

    Bill Clinton may be the President-Elect, but Tipper is a
    self-serving b_tch who has, in the past, used her husband's
    influence to drive her personal agenda.
    
    It's good that Bill says he's against censorship and such,
    but I worry about him.  Not quite as much as I worried about
    the possibility of Bush getting re-elected, but I worry
    just the same.

    
    So tell me, what did Tipper Gore do that was so bad?
    
    Would you want your child seeing a porno movie at age 10.
    
    So you don't mind if your 10 year old listens to N.W.A. tell a woman
    that she's a whore and all she's good for is butt-fudgin'?
    
    I see.
    
    Tipper Gore pushed for VOLUNTARY stickering on albums. It's not
    required, and it's just like a movie rating.
    
    

    > I see.
    
    what you want to see?
    

    
    No, I see that you didn't answer my questions.
    
    I'm totally against censorship of any kind. But voluntary stickering is
    not a bad idea. Just like the movie ratings are voluntary. 
    
    
    

    
    I didn't answer your qestions because your questions, as written,
    did not merit an answer.
    
    No, of course I don't want my kid seeing a porno movie or listening
    to some of the rap lyrics that make some adults blush, but you knew
    that, right?
    
    Tipper merely settled for voluntary stickering.  What she actually
    accomplished and what she set out to accomplish are two different
    things.  She is not to be trusted.  If she had her way, much of
    what you and I listen to would be totally banned and we wouldn't
    even be able to listen to it, never mind our kids.
    
    

    
    How do you know she wants music banned? She has stated (as well as her
    husband) that she is against censorship and banning.
    
    COURTS Ban records not the PMRC.
    
    (Note: This does not mean I agree with everything the PMRC has to say)
    
    
    

    
    She has apparently changed her tune to be more politically savvy.
    NOW she says that she doesn't want to ban anything, but I saw her
    on TV once several years ago and she did want to ban things.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, her past actions speak louder than her
    present words.
    
    Yes, I know that the courts and the legislature ban things, but
    the PMRC is a political lobbying organization and they are (or
    were) trying to influence the government into passing laws that
    support their agenda.
    

    
    
    
    SO, anyone think that Clinton will go back on MTV? I remember him
    saying that he'd come back on when he was President.. 
    
    Whit-

    We all knew before the election we were getting a 4 for 1 deal if Slick
    Willy was elected.  He's already dragging his feet and buying time on
    all his campaign promises, while running for re-election at the same
    time, and he's not even inaugarated yet.  He's already showing he isn't
    quite as liberal as the liberals wanted him to be.
    
    Tipper and the PMRC is going to be the least of his problems.

    
    Yeah.  I am personally going to be a pain in his butt when
    some of the silly gun control legislation from the last
    congressional session gets re-introduced.
    
    We don't need no steenking Brady Bill.  We need a background
    check, preferably instant.  Brady only imposes a waiting period
    and no background check.  It's worthless.  The Staggers bill
    would have provided more of a real solution, but the liberals
    didn't want to hear it when they found out that the NRA
    whole-heartedly supported it.
    
    The next 4 years are going to be interesting.  I hope that the
    Bill of Rights manages to survive intact.
    
    

    Yeah but Kev, the background check is too costly and less feasible. 
    Brady is cheaper.  
    
    I'd like to see them put combination locks on the safeties.  If you
    don't own it, you won't be able to unlock it.
    
    The NRA is okay, but sometimes they forget the rest of the amendment
    that speaks about the "...right to bear arms."
    
>    The next 4 years are going to be interesting.  I hope that the
>    Bill of Rights manages to survive intact.
    
    That's the understatement of the day.
    
    Mike

    
    Oh poor babies. Clinton's gonna make you wait a week before you can buy
    a hand gun. Boo Hoo. I hurt for you...
    
    
    

    I can see that we're digging yet another rathole here.  This will
    be my last posting on this subject in this topic.  If you want to
    continue, let's please take it to 99 or another conference (and
    if another conference, preferably one that I don't read... :-)
    
    Mike sez:
    
    > Yeah but Kev, the background check is too costly and less feasible. 
    > Brady is cheaper.  
    
    Things that don't work usually are cheaper.  Brady is a political
    band-aid, nothing more.  It will do nothing to prevent crime.
    Staggers proposes a system like the already existant Virginia
    instant background check database.  It will cost more than
    Brady (i.e. more than nothing) to implement, but it will, in
    theory, prevent criminals from illegally purchasing handguns
    through normally legal channels.  FBI already has a national
    database in place.  All that is needed is a way for licensed
    dealers to access it.  It has been determined that even with
    weekly updates to the database, distributing copies of the
    database to dealers on CD-ROM could be done for about $100/yr
    per dealer.  (This assumes that each dealer has a PC and a
    CD-ROM drive.)  Is that too costly?
    
    > I'd like to see them put combination locks on the safeties.  If you
    > don't own it, you won't be able to unlock it.
    
    Too costly in terms of not being able to unlock your firearm in
    time in a crisis situation.  Many people own handguns to defend
    themselves.  Doesn't do you much good if you can't use it yourself.
    This also has absolutely nothing to do with the Brady bill.
    
    > The NRA is okay, but sometimes they forget the rest of the amendment
    > that speaks about the "...right to bear arms."
    
    And what do you mean by that?
    
    The 2nd amendment reads (and I quote, because I keep a copy of the
    Constitution in my office):
    
      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
       of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
       Arms, shall not be infringed."
    
    Are you one of those people who believe that because that sentence
    refers to the Militia that it does not apply to "the people?"
    
    Look up "Militia" in the dictionary.  Hint, it doesn't mean
    the National Guard.  It means the people.  All the people.
    Well regulated means people who know how to shoot straight.
    
    If liberals interpreted the 2nd amendment the same way they interpret
    the first, fourth, fifth and ninth then gun ownership and marksmanship
    training would be mandatory.
    
    >>    The next 4 years are going to be interesting.  I hope that the
    >>    Bill of Rights manages to survive intact.
    
    > That's the understatement of the day.
    
    Ancient Chinese curse:  May you live in interesting times.
    
    We are.
    
        

    
    Re: .196
    
    Grow up.  The Brady Bill won't affect me because I usually decide
    what I'm going to buy quite a while before I buy it.  Then again,
    I'm a collector and a competition target shooter.  I've waited
    longer than a week to get a comp. trigger job done.  BFD.
    
    Brady will adversely affect those people, particularly women,
    who's lives are in immediate danger from stalkers and/or abusive
    ex-SOs.  A woman who is receiving death threats from her ex can't
    afford to wait a week to buy some protection.  There are documented
    cases in states with waiting periods where women have had threats
    carried out upon them and have been killed while waiting to buy
    their handgun.
    
    I'd rather let honest law-abiding people buy whatever they want
    whenever they want while closing a door on criminals than to
    make everyone, good guys and bad guys alike wait for a week.
    Brady does nothing to prevent a convicted felon from buying a
    handgun, it just makes him wait.  He can usually get one
    faster and cheaper on the black market anyway.
    
    -- 
    Kevin

>    Are you one of those people who believe that because that sentence
>    refers to the Militia that it does not apply to "the people?"
    
    No not quite.  I own a gun myself, as well as a bow.  My beef is with
    the "well regulated" part.  Something we don't have.
    
>    If liberals interpreted the 2nd amendment the same way they interpret
>    the first, fourth, fifth and ninth then gun ownership and marksmanship
>    training would be mandatory.
    
    Well that's what makes liberals so much fun.  If they held standardized
    convictions, they wouldn't be liberals now, would they? ;-)
    
    Mike

    
    OK, Mike.  I've got no beef with you and I apologize if we had
    any misunderstanding.  You can understand that as a die-hard
    sportman, I'm feeling somewhat paranoid these days...
    
    Oh, BTW, 200 REPLIEZ!!!
    

    Woah, PMRC discussion!  Where's Dave Blickstein when ya need him??
    
    gh

    
     Hello fello Bangers...I just like to say that the P.M.R.C. is a
    soicalistic regime,These Brain washed Born again Christans want to
    impose there sanctions and religous Bull S**T on every one of us...
    
    They want to Ban not just Music ,but Abortion ,the right to bear arms,
    Dungons & Dragons,the clothes you wear, holloween costumes , Nuclear
    reactors, and the most obnoctious Bio-genetic-resurch.
    
     Bio genetics could solve the would hunger problem!!!
    
                  Down with these Hipocrates
                  Down with these close minded finatics
                  Down with these comunist
    
    This is America if they like Socialism move to Cuba , or
    Red-China,leave us true Americans alone!!!
    
        Hey tipper-("Love you from the bottom of our pond")
    
    Pete
    

    
    Hmmm...
    
    Thats a mighty fine soapbox you have there dude.

    >Down with these Hipocrates
    
    Poor old Hippocrates eh? There he was, rambling around dead, minding
    his own business for over 2000 years and now somebody's putting him
    down. Poor bloke.
    
    :^)
                     
    barry.  

    re: .202....could someone please close-caption this for the spelling
    impaired.......re: '-1/......ahaahhahh..."running around dead, minding
    his own business??"...thanks for the morning laugh.......;")......./k

    Hippocrates?  Isn't that what they ship hippos in?
    
    

    Aww... thats cute!

    I once saw a band called Socrates and they wuz Greek and not good.
    
    Plato.                            

    I`ve been to Greece on holiday,and rather enjoyed myself.
    

    Obviously the US citizens hated Tipper and the PMRC so much that they
    put her in the White House...

    
      RE:Flattery Ya I know I cant spell  Oh Well...
    
     Later:Pete
    
    

    RE: .202
    
    Yup, see that WENDY*Oset is just hummin along fine!