From: lewis4@husc8.harvard.edu (Andrew Lewis)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Rights/censorship (minimal ODC)
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:07:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jul22.180752.14073
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Sorry for the lack of dead content, but this seems to have become a topic of
pretty serious discussion (and flaming).
I noticed that two people, with very different views in general made the
statements (paraphrased):
"From whence tdo rights come" [actually, "from whence" is wrong. whence already
means "from where". but we'll let that pass]
and "the whole notion of rights seems fuzzy"
Both got flamed quite a bit for these statements, but even the flamers couldn't seem to agree on what they were talking about. I think it's important to 
distinguish between different kinds of "rights" (though I would prefer to avoid
that term altogether).
First there are rights guaranteed by the constitution and its amendments. this
is what some people are talking about.
Second, there are government restrictions, in the forms of laws and court 
precedents, often conflicting in some ways with the first amendment, but with
long-standing acceptance.
Third, there are "natural rights." This is what some of the rest of you have
been talking about. It's also important to remember that the people who wrote
the constitution were really big on the idea of natural rights.
Personally, I think focusing on natural rights just obscures the issues. After 
all, the argument used by some people is that the government has no right to 
regulate business. But other people (like me) would ask what gave businesses
the "right" to control the means of production in the first place.
Or again, in some sense I have a right to dose Rich's wife. By the same token,
Catfish has the right to kick the shit out of me afterwards.
In other words, if you don't believe in god (which I don't), or even if you
do believe in god but don't think he spends a lot of time keeping track of us
and deciding whether we go to heaven or hell (also a possibility), then the
concept of natural rights loses most of its meaning.
Going back to rights granted by the government (which theoretically passes laws
only with our mandate):
Lots of people have used the example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre 
(which I guess was in some famous court case). But there are other examples of
ways in which the government controls "speech" (which is after all, just a 
form of behavior):
food/drug labeling laws
advertising
speech which poses a "clear and present danger", for example advocating the
violent overthrow of the government.
In other cases, speech is not outlawed, but, as someone already mentioned,
an individual may be found liable for damage caused by others as a "result"
of his speech.  Just this weekend on PBS there was Bill Moyers show about a 
white supremacist who was found liable for 5 million dollars (as was his son)
because some skinheads who read his literature killed some ethiopians.
He said after the trial, that he knew he would be found guilty, that the whole
thing was a set-up from the beginning. In a lot of ways I agree. It's not at
all clear that what actually advocated violence. Nor is it clear (to me) that
even if he DID advocate violence, it's his fault if people act on it. On the
other hand, if I had been on the jury, I would have voted against him, pretty
much regardless of how the facts of the case related to legal precedent.  
(That's why they'll probably never put me on a jury).
But in any case, in this sense, I think that laws finding people liable for
what others do as a result of their speech are AT LEAST as dangerous as laws
that ban such speech outright. After all, who gets to determine what I meant 
by my speech. Maybe it's vague. Maybe it's clear but I can claim that it was
art, or that it was a parody. In what sense am I responsible for what others
do after listening to me? They don't even have to listen. (for example, you
can all hit 'n' at any point).
Most of us agree that the government (or Society, if you prefer) should be
able to regulate behavior (for example, murder).  On the other hand, I think
that likewise we would all be scared of a society that tried to ban speech, say,advocating drug use, or drug legalization, or socialism, or capitalism, or
the grateful dead.  In between, it's hard to say. But I think it's just as much
of a knee-jerk reaction to wax poetic about "free speech" as it is to slap
labels on albums that we don't like.
NOW, going back to the original question of labeling:
I agree in this instance that we should fight the labelers however we have to.
For one thing, it is clear that music falls into the category of art, which
traditionally gives it even greater protection.
Someone brought up the example of movie ratings. Another person pointed out
that they were voluntary, and another claimed that no rating was equivalent
to an X. In fact, they are voluntary. However, most of the big movie theater
chains, and many smaller theatres refuse as a policy to show any movie that
has either an "X" or a "No rating" (or now an "NC-17" i guess), and almost
nowhere can someone under 17 be admitted to one of these. Thus, releasing a
movie with no rating, either because it would have gotten an X or as a politicalstatement will automatically eliminate most of your potential audience. This
is another example of how something supposedly less coercive than mandatory 
ratings ultimately has the same effect (thanks in large part to corporate
America).
In the same way, if voluntary labeling of records ever became prevalent, just
imagine how many parents would refuse to buy a record for their kids (or refuse
to let their kids own an album) that was not submitted to the labeling committee. Truly scary. 
So in this case, I think it's foolish to accept this sort of censorship. (hey,
also, I like NWA). As a few people have pointed out: god forbid we should try
to figure out why so many people want to kill cops, and do something about THAT.Also, despite their strong environmental record, I can't see any reason to vote
for someone as conservative as Clinton/Gore. If we keep voting for these types
of candidates, big business/the Democratic Leadership Council/the media will 
keep giving them to us.  Vote labor party!
ODC: or vote Jerry/Bob!
more ODC: Since Al Gore's wife likes the dead, shouldn't we call her Tripper?
Andy Lewis