From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The truth about Tipper Gore (was:Re: the US elections...)
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:59:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1223@abb-sc.abb-sc.COM>, ksm@abb-sc.abb-sc.com (Ashley) writes:
> In article <2AFEADF4.29425@news.service.uci.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes...
>>In article <19043@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:

>>>How many times does this have to be said:  LABELS WARNING OF
>>>POTENTIALLY OBJECTIONABLE OR OBSCENE CONTENT DO NOT CONSTITUTE
>>>CENSORSHIP!!  

In theory this is true. In practice...I remember at the height of the
labelling furor (way back when people gave a damn) that some record stores
(remember? they used to carry records :) refused to carry albums with
labels. This isn't something I heard from a friend, it's something I saw
on the news, with interview clips with store managers, so I think it is
a slightly reliable fact.

If albums become unavailable because someone is offended, that is de
facto censorship.

>>The problem I have is that I just don't trust the people who judge
>>whether something is explicit or not to judge as I would.  It reminds me
>>of a furor caused by a respected painting featured on the label of a
>>bottle of wine.  What was the problem with this, you ask?
>> 
>>It had a full-frontally nude man.  *Gasp!*
>> 
>>But is it censorship?  No.  Only if the records are not allowed to be
>>played or bought does it constitute censorship.  A mere warning label is
>>not enough.  Like I said, how many people who supposedly are afraid of
>>Tipper Gore boycott Paramount, Universal, Touchstone, Warner brothers,
>>20th Century Fox, and other movie/TV products because they support a far
>>more legitimately labelled form of censorship in the form of movie
>>ratings that prohibit them from being shown to certain people? 

You know, I used to think that was a good arguement, because after all, we've
had movie ratings for years and we seem to be okay. So why not rate albums
the same way? Now I wonder. How many movies have I heard about but never
had the opportunity to see?

The purported idea behind labels is that parents can find out what is in
an album and decide if they would like their child to buy it.  Supposedly
it is *not* illegal for a child to purchase such an album--it's only a 
guide for responsible parents. I think any "responsible" parent could go
through my record collection and pick out which ones are questionable,
without needing to resort to labels. There's something else going on.

> 	Janis, the problem with Tipper Gore is a little deeper than that. 
> Tipper was/is the leader of a Christian Fundamentalist cencorship movement. 
> Here is a little history of what she has represented in the recent past (or 
> at least until her husband began to look like presidential material).

[handsome history of the Dead Kennedys deleted]

Now, according to Jello Biafra (on his last spoken word album) and I think
I've seen it elsewhere, she denies having any contact with Christian groups.
Wasn't her co-founder of PMRC a fundie?
 
She also completely denies that she or the PMRC ever attempted to censor or
ban *anyone*, and says that she opposes censorship.

Oh, I'd better warn y'all now. I'm including some slightly offensive quotes
a little later, so if you have a real weak stomache, you can leave now.

> 	During this time, Tipper gore and several other high ranking 
> menbers of the PMRC came up with the warning label that they wanted to see 
> on all albums containing "harmful material". The label would cover at least 
> one quarter of the packaging and would read:
> 
> 		WARNING
> The materials whether recorded or depicted in this package may contain 
> references to and/or promote one or more of the following:
> 
> Pornography, murder, homosexuality, Communist Propiganda, fornication, 
> sodomy, beastiality, felatio, connilingus, rape, masturbation, lesbianism, 
> (etc, etc,.....) blasphemy, animal sacrifice, *satanism and witchcraft*, 
> paganism, voodoo, Nazism, the occult, bigotry, un-American values, (etc, 
> etc, etc.....)

This label also covered things like mention of alcohol. The result was that
if it were applied impartially, just about everything would get stickered,
including some songs that are (in my mind) some of the most harmless things
ever. At the time it was pretty obvious that albums would *not* be labelled
impartially.
 
The best example of this is Frank Zappa's instrumental album that's been
stickered. An *instrumental*, fer cryin' out loud! They don't look or
listen, they just oppress.

On a further note, I mentioned above that the labels are not intended to
be an actual age restriction (at least not the last time I heard). 
However, there are often local laws regarding certain albums. In Virginia
those under 18 weren't allowed to buy the uncensored version of a work by
some rap artist. At the same time, they *could* buy albums with such
great themes as:

"I want to fuck the dead." --TSOL
"Give praise to Satan." --Deicide
"Kill the President." --The Offspring
"Hack the heads off little girls." --The Misfits

These are NOT taken out of context, folks! All these bands have songs that
I am sure would be at least as offensive as anything on that rap album I
referred to. The government's choice of what they are censoring (and let's
be honest, this is censoring) is a political thing. They don't listen to
every album, but pick out certain ones based on political motives. I am
sad to say that the majority of banned artists are black.

Well, that's enough ranting for now. If I say any more, Tipper might come
after Usenet :)

--Semhaza