From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:59:35 GMT


In a previous article, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:

>In article <1992Sep14.032942.19789@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>
>>I have to disagree with this.  rating systems are not censorship, they are
>>a system of information.  You will notice that the movie system does not
>>actively prevent anyone with the money to see a film, it only lets the
>>viewer know what he may be in for.  Likewise, thje application of warning
>>labels on albums in no way constitutes censorship.  Labeling only allows
>>parents to be aware that an album may contain material which they may not
>>approve their children listining to.
>>
>
>Any rating not applied by someone other than the artist themself to their 
>creative work is a form of censorship...
>

I do not understand your reasoning.  How does putting a lable or rating
on an item constitute censorship in any form?  There is no attempt to
control content by labeling...in fact, I know several people who will
not see a film if it has anything less then an "r" rating, as they feel
a film rated anything less is tame.  

>>
>>>
>>>The proper non-censorship system is to get rid of any labelling
>>>systems, and those people who are truly concerned should set up
>>>reviewing systems where people worried about content can subscribe
>>>to, to get reviews.
>>
>>This I also disagree with.  Since the studios and the album houses are
>>making the money, I believe they have a responsibility to inform the 
>>public that a product contains material which may be offensive.
>>
>
>Why would you prefer an anonymous censor about whom you know nothing
>and who could be "Satan" for all you know, to an independent
>reviewer of your choice about whom you can know everything?
>

Indeed?  OK, let's imagine that "reviewer" as, say, the "Focus on Family"
if they were the reviewer, nothing would be recommended, other than sacred
music and rebroadcasts of religious programming.  They even oppose such
vile works as Disney's "Fantasia".

Conversely, make that reviewer the ACLU.  then EVERYTHING would be classified
as good and wholesome for family consumption (a propisition I find as distaste-
ful as the former)

If the system you desired was in place, uou would have to have an independant
rater for every person, for every viewpoint, for every interest group.  This
is rather more difficult then keeping the current system.


>>And while I would seriously oppose any system of rating or labeling which
>>would prevent access to materials, or oppress an artist's right to express
>>themselves as they see fit, I think labeling content is appropriate.
>>
>
>If you truly care about content, of what use is a "rating" by an
>anonymous censor

Again, you use the term "censor".  When the ratings boards apply a rating
or determine the need to apply a parental warning label, there is no 
censorship.  They have no control over content.  Why, then, do you insist
on calling them censors?

>...if you care about content, the least you should
>do as a concerned parent or whatever, is find reviewers of films,
>music, and books in the media you trust by comparing their reviews
>of artistic works with your own over time.
>

Nonesense.  If I choose to see a film or listen to an album, I do so.
I do not listen to the reviewers, as more often then not, my tastes
do not coincide with any of them.

Besides, who do you think has more power as censor:the review boards, or
reviewers like Siskel and Ebert, who's "thumbs down" is the entertainment
field's equivelent of the "Kiss of Death"?

>Gerald
>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush