From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Subject: Re: Music labelling (was So its Clinton/Gore, eh?)
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:21:57 GMT


In article <1defhrINN2n9@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  
(Jon Livesey) writes:

> > > Bad analogy.  Blurbs don't present themselves as anything
> > > but subjective, plenty of people complain about reviews -
> > > read the letters column of the New York Times Book Review
> > > section sometime - and a list of topics is informative.
> > 
> > So some people complain; and some appreciate the same things others  
> > complain about. (And I don't understand the point behind your
> > mentioning that a list of topics is informative. That's true...
> > and...?)
> 
> It's true *and* you asked who complains about it.  The answer
> is: because it's informative and has nothing in common with
> warning labels on records, few people would have any reason to
> complain.   Giving a list of topics in a book, rather than a
> subjective warning label, is harmless.  That's why it's a bad
> analogy.

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.

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."
 
> > There's been outright censorship of many things, including the
> > arts, over the years (whether imposed by governments, religions,
> > school boards, or individuals), and that has not stopped authors
> > or whoever from creating.  
> 
> How the hell do you know what it has or has not stopped?

One could ask you the same question.

> 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; that's prerogative. And  
if someone can find absolutely no one to publish/mass produce/distribute  
their creation (for any reason, even if it's just because no one else  
thinks it's artistically good or socially significant or whatever else  
their criteria might be), then they can do it themselves if they're that  
determined to have it disseminated. No one's putting a gun to their head  
and "preventing" them from being published (or, what would be even worse,  
from creating in the first place). I suppose there have been some people  
who've been discouraged in their attempts to publish (again, for whatever  
reasons the publishers who turned them down may have had), but they can  
blame no one but themselves for not being persistent (or courageous or  
whatever other adjective might fit) enough to pursue other means of  
publication. 

> > And even if someone started putting "warning labels" on
> > books, do you think that'd stop people from buying them?
> 
> Other posters have already answered this.  It's not a question
> of "stopping people from buying books".  It's a question of
> self-censorship by publishers, and a chilling effect on authors.

I've already commented on a publisher's prerogative. But I've just read  
your other post (in response to bob1@cos.com) where you say "Are you  
aware, for example, that many English-speaking authors had to get their  
work published in France, because publishing houses in the USA were  
unwilling to handle them? This is self-censorship." Again, a publisher has  
a right to not publish something (practice "self-censorship," as you call  
it)--but they don't have a right to prevent you from creating something,  
or to prevent it from being published by someone else, or to prevent  
someone buying it after it's published elsewhere. Trying to force a  
publisher to handle a work it doesn't want to is as bad as  
censorship--both take away a person's right to choose for themself.

You still haven't explained this "chilling effect" you perceive. I'm  
sensing this topic is very important to you, so much so that it may be  
more than just a concerned interest--maybe you or someone you know has had  
some negative personal experience with it. If so, I'd be very interested  
to hear about it, not only because it might better explain where you're  
coming from, but because I'm just genuinely interested in actual  
experiences people have in this area.
Newsgroups: socs.misc,alt.canada,soc.canada,alt.politics.canada,mcgill.general,soc.culture.canada,can.politics