From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Subject: Re: Music labelling (was So its Clinton/Gore, eh?)
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:22:21 GMT

In article <1df0mmINN7jo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  
(Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
> In article <BxBFGM.M0t@Novell.COM>,  
dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM writes:
> > 
> > Sometimes a list of topics *does* have something in
> > common with "warning labels" if the topics in the list
> > truly reflect what's in the book--but sometimes it won't be
> > enough because you can't always tell what it's really about
> > just by looking at a topic (or chapter title or song
> > title).  For example, a song titled "Tuesday Night" could
> > be about any number of things that could have happened on a
> > Tuesday night--or it might not even have to do with a
> > Tuesday night at all. So using a list of topics or scanning
> > a book's table of contents or an album's song list is not
> > always "objective" or helpful enough to use in your
> > decision-making about it.
> 
> I think I have lost track of your argument here.   You started
> out by asserting that a factual list of contents has "something
> in common" with a warning label, and ended up by saying that a
> list of contents isn't always helpful.   What's the connection?

Maybe my "stream of consciousness" in that paragraph wasn't a solid path.  
I started out by answering your argument against my analogy between a  
book's topic list/table of contents and a record's label by pointing out  
that they can have something in common if both are truly objective by  
merely listing the contents of the book/record (an opposite scenario from  
the one you proposed by saying a book's table of contents is objective but  
a record's "warning label" wouldn't be). As I was thinking about that (and  
typing it), I thought of a possible counter-argument that since a record  
has a song list, it already has an "objective" type of "table of  
contents," so why does it also need a label? And in answering my own  
question (which others may also have come to), I was just pointing out  
that although a book topic list or record song list is indeed "objective,"  
it is also minimalistic in what it really tells you about the  
contents--therefore if you *really* want to know the contents of a record,  
the (*objectively*) descriptive labelling would be much more helpful. So  
it's not merely a matter of objectivity, but of how useful that  
objectivity is. Sorry if the train of thought wasn't very obvious.

> > And you keep assuming that these labels will undoubtedly
> > be "subjective warning labels" rather than just informative
> > labels saying things like "This record contains strong
> > profanity," "Beastiality themes throughout," "Cop-killing
> > encouraged," or "Advice on what to do when your parents are
> > out of town on a Tuesday night."
> 
> I'm not assuming anything.   I asked when they would get
> around to putting the same kind of warning labels on books
> as they now put on records.

Forgive my assumption about what you assume. It's just that from your tone  
and word choice when describing/talking about potential music labels, I  
infer only derisiveness, ridicule, and contempt. And much of your argument  
has been that they'd be a form of censorship--which itself is based on  
much subjectivity on the censor's part. But if my assumption is wrong and  
you don't assume the labels will be "subjective warning labels" that  
merely serve to censor, then what *is* your argument against them?

> > > How the hell do you know what it has or has not stopped?
> > 
> > One could ask you the same question.
> 
> I gave examples in my last post of authors who were unable to
> get published in the US this century because publishing houses
> exercised self-censorship.   Did you miss it?   [I see from
> the tail of your posting that you didn't miss it, so why the
> question?]

The question was because I had originally said that outright censorship  
over the years "has not stopped authors or whoever from creating," and  
your response was the ever-so-politely-put "How the hell do you know what  
it has or has not stopped?" Your mention in the other post about some  
people having gone outside this country to get their stuff published  
doesn't have anything to do with their ability to *create* the stuff. So,  
I was asking you what you know about censorship itself (not just an  
artist's own lack of courage, etc.) stopping someone from creating  
something. (And that's not just a rhetorical question--I'd really like to  
know.)
 
> > > Are you falling for the fallacy that since some authors got
> > > published, no authors were prevented from being published?
> > 
> > No, I'm not. I said it has never stopped anyone from *creating*.
> > Just as one has the right to create, so does one have the right
> > to refuse to publish another's creation. That's not censorship;
> > .....
> 
> Oh, here we go.  The great and the good can set the standards,
> and as long as the government isn't involved, it's not censorship.

Publishers do, and have the right to, set the standards/guidelines *for  
themselves* as to what they will or won't publish--just as any business  
has a right to decide what partners they'll deal with, what products  
they'll produce or sell, and what clients they'll serve ("No shirt, No  
shoes, No service!" "I'm sorry, but you must wear a tie and suit coat to  
have dinner in this restaurant.") They don't force any other publisher to  
adopt the same standards, nor do they run around the world trying to  
police us so we don't buy the stuff that they turned down but someone else  
accepted for publication--which *would* be censorship. A business has its  
own goals and "rules to live by"--and to say a publisher that turns  
something down has proclaimed itself "great and good" and is trying to set  
the standard for the world is ridiculous. Just because "McCall's" won't  
print pictures that "Playboy" will and "Reader's Digest" won't print  
articles "The National Enquirer" will, they're practicing censorship?  
Maybe they're "censoring" those things from their own publications--but  
they're not stopping anyone from creating those things or from getting  
them published elsewhere, nor are they stopping anyone from getting access  
to them when they are published.

I don't care if the FBI itself managed the labelling of music--I don't  
care who might do it as long as they merely objectively told me what the  
content is like. And like I mentioned before, even if they did say slanted  
things like "Watch out--these lyrics will corrupt you!", that wouldn't be  
any worse than if my friend who had that same opinion about it "warned"  
me. It certainly wouldn't be censorship. (After all we've gone back and  
forth on this, maybe the core issue is what the definition of "censorship"  
is to different people.)
 
> Well, that argument [that it's not censorship if the gov't. isn't
> involved] is quite popular in the US, but in the rest of the world 
> we recognize concepts like self-censorship.  Not all the world is 
> US-shaped, believe it or not.

I really do "believe" it (more than that, I *know* it). But you should  
also "believe it or not" that we too recognize concepts like  
self-censorship. But what I'm not understanding is why you think that is a  
negative concept. Obviously, from my above comments, I feel publishers are  
justified in censoring themselves--why do you feel they're not?

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:8270 can.politics:9368