From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:29:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep15.010027.18091@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.232527.24528@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.223356.13308@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>>>No...it is only fine if the creative artist labels (defaces) their own
>>>work.  If the company, or publisher, or government, or anyone other
>>>than the artist does it, it is censorship.

>>1.) Ordinarily, censorship is normally spoken of as a government action.

>No...a censor is any official (if the artist does it to him or herself
>it is self-censorship) who examines and rates artistic material before
>public release...it has nothing necessarily to do with the government.

Usually it IS used to mean the government, especially when talking about
policy.  In any case, only when the government does it is it
unconstitutional.  (I don't see that Bob in the ratings department of
Columbia Records is an "official" in the normal use of that word.)
 
>>2.) Censorship is defined as one who suppresses or deletes objectionable
>>	material.  Putting a warning label on does no such thing.  Banning
>>	people from buying an album with a warning label does, but simply
>>	putting the label on does not.

>Putting a rating on an artistic work defaces the work and constitutes
>censorship...or certainly a form of censorship.

"Defacing" something is not "censoring" it.  The only thing the rating
is put on is the album cover, which isn't what is being sold.  If you want 
to take two things and then equate them, and then say "therefore they're 
equal" then there isn't much to argue about.  I posted the dictionary
definition of "censor."  Putting a rating on an album does not suppress
or delete objectionable material.

>>3.) Since the "artist" is working for the company/publisher, they
>>	have the right to do that to it.  If he doesn't want the company
>>	to do that, he shouldn't work with them or sell his product to them.
>>	It *becomes* the company's own work when he sells it to them.  If I 
>>	buy the Mona Lisa and burn it, that isn't censorship.

>In a commercial relationship between an artist and their publisher,
>I agree it may be sometimes unclear where the editorial process ends
>and censorship begins...however, putting a label on it constitutes
>censorship.

Why?  It doesn't prevent anyone from seeing or hearing the work.  If
someone else does, based on the rating, then THEY are doing the
censoring, not the rating.

>>Otherwise, by your definition, Siskel and Ebert are censors, since they
>>are not the creative artists, and they're labelling movies.

>Their reviews aren't attached to the movie...there is nothing wrong
>with reviewing artistic works as long as the reviews are not forced
>upon the artistic work. 

What makes something an artistic work?  Who handed it down from on high,
and claimed that Madonna's album (for example) is a work of art, and 
therefore cannot be rated?  Why is putting a label on the outside of a
album "forcing it upon the work?"  How is that *different* from Siskel
and Ebert?  You can ignore them, and you can ignore the rating label.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc