From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:00:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <farenebt.716494008@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep14.141006.19839@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>>Any rating not applied by someone other than the artist themself to their 
>>>creative work is a form of censorship...
>
>>  Saying so does not make it so.   
>
>>  I say labeling is informational; no different from putting the
>>  sodium content on a can of soup or requiring that the content
>>  of something match the description on the box in order to avoid
>>  false advertising charges.
>
>Not necesarily. The amount of sodium in a can of soup is constant.
>If you say there is 10 mg of sodium, everyone knows what that means.
>10 mg is a tangible amount which is universal. "Explicit lyrics" is
>not universal, "explicit" for Eddie Murphy is different than "explicit"
>for a Quaker, for example. 

  True, so the terms have to be defined.  The "f" word, the "s" word, etc.
  This is not hard.   And again, if it's done by a panel, as I said, I
  don't have to *agree* with them; I merely have to *understand* their
  standards to use it as a data point.


>>  Parents need to have some way of determining what is appropriate 
>>  material for their children to view/listen to, and a label
>>  indicating language, violence, nudity, etc, is not in and of
>>  itself censorship as long as the vendor is free to sell the item 
>>  and the public is free to buy it.  
>
>The problem with that is that the vendor is NOT free to sell it if
>they open themselves up to a lawsuit.

  Oh nonsense.  Right now, today, when you sell something (anything!)
  you are open to a lawsuit.  That's modern life.  We need serious 
  legal reform, but this is not a problem unique to the record in-
  dustry.  Labeling CDs and records *reduces* this risk because 
  companies can then have specific policies based on the labels.
  They can either refuse to sell material with certain labels to
  minors or if a parent sues a record store because the record had
  the "f" word all the record company has to say is, "See? It says
  right here: 'explicit lyrics' so you were warned.  Now go away." 



>For example, some people are offended if a man takes his shirt off
>(many are if a woman takes her shirt off...but not me :) 

  And as a naturist I have no problem with signs saying "clothing
  optional beyond this point".   The nice thing about warning 
  labels is that they make some things more possible because they
  reduce the right of people to complain that they are offended by 
  some thing, since now they have a way to avoid that which offends
  them.


>The music industry's definition of explicit is certainly different
>than some other peoples. Because the mi says it is explicit doesnt
>mean that it is legally (obscene) and vice versa applies even more.

  It doesn't matter whether it's different from mine.  As I said,
  to use it as a datapoint I only have to know what it is; I don't
  have to agree with it.

>Anyways, if government censorship is imposed, no one is free to do
>anything.

  Agreed, but labeling isn't censorship.


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc