X-Envelope-to: cinema-l@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"cinema-l@auvm"
X-VMS-Cc: CLERC
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:47:00 EST
From:         CLERC@GENESEO.BITNET
Subject:      labels and censorship

Mike,

        Aaaaaahhhhh...nothing like a little personal abuse to get the
work week off to a rollicking start...

        I'll say this at the very beginning, so you might actually _read_
it: nowhere in my post did I say that I do or do not approve of putting
labels on records. What I did say was that I don't see how it differs
from rating movies or the announcements on TV that "this program
contains material that might not be suitable for all family members."
I also said I find those warnings offensive.

>Ok, for those of you who don't think that record labeling is censorship:
>What world do you live in?
>Maybe this doesn't fall under the "legal definition"
>of censorship, but ask yourselves, what is actually going on in the REAL
>WORLD w/censorship and if it wasn't importnat, why the hell would groups
>like the PMRC fight so hard for labeling anyway?
>Because in the world I
>live in, record stores stop carrying certain albums, esp. if they cause
>enough controversy. Where were you people for 2 Live Crew, but more
>recently, Ice-T's metal album Body Count? Stores have taken albums off
>shelves, people.

        Well, Mike, the world I live in routinely denies access to certain
commodities to those under a certain age: alcohol, cars, the vote...Use of
these is restricted by _law_.

        Movie ratings and record labeling are _voluntary_. If an artist wants
to sell his product, then he will probably try to stay within the guidelines
set by the industry - and that's who is responsible for the ratings system,
but he doesn't HAVE to. Ratings are not enforced by law and his artistic
freedom is not being restricted by laws forbidding his chosen subject matter.
His ability to market his product, on the other hand, is being influenced.
That is commerce, not art.

        Your right to consume is not guaranteed by law. In fact, your ability
to consume is subject to any number of factors - your age, where you live,
how much money you have. In the world I live in, I am frequently denied the
"right" to see movies. I live in a small town near a small city. It isn't
profitable for the theatres to carry many films like _The Rapture_. I
can't even find that in the video stores. Is this censorship?

        It is the right of, for instance, the police to urge people not
to buy "Cop Killer." If a store owner, faced with picketers, stops
carrying the record, that is also his right. It is your right to protest
in return and find another store to shop in. This is the reality of
a capitalist economy.

        The problem with living in a pluralistic society is that you have
to put up with people with opposing viewpoints.

>Very real groups like the PMRC has definite pull in this society
>founded by Puritans. If you're a censorship advocate, then I
>understand this atttitude towards the subject, but if you are supposedly
>against it, then do you sit idly by and say nothing just because this
>obvious, very real limitation of my freedom to go obtain something I
>would like to listen to doesn't happen to fit into some legal definition
>of censorship?

        Freedom of expression is meant to protect the artist, not the
consumer.

        There is also a difference between using social sanctions like
boycotts, and using legal sanctions like fines, to control what is available.
I realize the difference may be too subtle for some to grasp, but it is
there.

>Don't you people know that much of censorship happens on
>a local level? the problem isn't so much the government as parents
>groups banning Huck Finn from the public library becasue of foul
>language.

        Actually, the reasons Huck Finn is a target are 1) it supposedly
promotes atheism and 2) Jim's dialect is considered by some to be racist.

> This happens, people. Under what rocks do you all live?

        Plymouth Rock, of course...

>By the way, for the person who said that some
>speech is not preotected by the Constitution, you are right, but you
>failed to observe a very salient point here: The speech you are talking
>about is "hate speech" (a racial slur is an example, as this is regarded
>by many as provocation) and other types of disruptive
>speech, like yelling "Fire!" in the movie theater, to use an oft-used
>example. This has NOTHING to do with the VOLUNTARY buying of a record
>album in a store. The difference here is simple: YOU DON'T HAVE TO
>LISTEN TO IT.

        I was talking about several kinds of speech, only one of which
fits your definition of "hate speech." The point I was making is that
freedom of speech is not a blanket that covers every possible utterance.
There are limits in real life whether you want to recognize them or not.
This is a complex issue; simplistic rhetoric and hysteria are not going
to help work out a realistic solution.

>                         I am sick and tired of you people
>who sit around and complain about censorship and the dangers thereof,
>but wait until it's a big problem to do something about it. You wait
>until uyou are already fucked over. Don't you se the very real effect of
>something so deceptively innocent as record-labeling? Don't you realize
>that the race in the coming years between the political parties will be
>somewhat decided by who offers the best examples of upholding "family
>values?" Do you realize that Tipper Gore is going to have real
>inflluence on her very powerful husband if he become Vice President of
>the United States?

        Uh-huh...I've seen what a profound effect Marilyn and Dan Quayle
have had on spelling...

>At the very LEAST, he will try to satisfy her (and
>thereby her constituency, being conservative groups like the PMRC or the
>Moral Majority, both grewat espousers of the virtues of "family
>values"). This is REAL, and it is happening now. If you don't like
>censorship, then get your fucking face out of the sand. Stop standing by
>telling yourself that "It's no big deal, it's no biggie. I'll stand up
>if it gets too bad." That's bullshit. I believe that conservatism is
>making a comeback in this country, and if you don't agree with this,
>then at least you must agree that "family values" are going to be the
>cool thing to have in politics in the upcoming years. you don't fuck
>around with groups like the PMRC and the local PTAs and come out looking
>cool anymore.

        The comparison I was making was between the labels on records
and the movie rating system...a comparison you have failed to address...

>We are losing our freedoms just bit by bit, and i am not saying
>that we are slipping into fascism or any shit like that, so I don't want
>to see any posts calling me the Mad Anarchist or somesuch crap. I just
>ant to ask whether you want to wait until it's too late to do anything.
>What are you waiting for? A record ratings system? Perhaps you're
>waiting for a law saying that you can't by certain music or books until
>your a certain age.

        It is illegal to sell pornography to minors, just as it is illegal
to sell them alcohol or allow them to drive.

        Not every limitation on your actions is a form of censorship or
violation of your rights.

>Hmm, maybe then it'll be time to act. I mean, some
>libraries already retrict access to books until 14 years of age. hey,
>maybe you're waiting until the record label carries as much weight as
>the "X" rating does in the cinema world. Hey, now there's legal, as well
>as social sanction against the material.

        Have X-rated movies stopped being made?

> I mean come on. They're trying
>all this shit, people, and they have failed before. But the politcal
>winds have changed. I just want don't want to be downwind from all the
>shit that's coming. This really stinks, you know.

        See you at the ACLU fund-raiser, then?

                        Sue
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU