From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: Re: Sinead on SNL...YAY SINEAD! 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:17:24 GMT

locker@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Locker ) writes:
>>I do think she has more to say, follow ups...but do you think the
>>mainstream and tame media is going to take her seriously?  Too many of
>>their target viewers are intolerant of radical political and philosophic
>>thought.  It's too much to think about.  

>Sorry, Sinead is the  intolerant one here. 

She is one person, the media is a group.  Opinions, by nature, are
intolerant-ish.  By intolerant, though, I mean the desire by many to
"kill sinead, shut her up, shut her off, ban her, make her viewpoint
unhearable".  THAT's intolerance.  I can't really speak for her, but I
don't think she's trying to censor a thing.

>>I applaud Sinead for what she did.  First of all, I think I know what
>>she was getting at with the Pope-rip (Catholicism is causing death in
>>her homeland, I believe and religion itself is best left behind).
>>Secondly, it takes guts to do that sort of thing (for lack of a better
>>term).  If she wanted attention, she could have done many worse things.
>>She was making a statement that I interpretted as anti-institutionalized
>>religion and anti-dogma.  I agree.

>Consider a different spin on this argument.  What if a Palestinian
>entertainer had come on a show and blamed Judaism for the sins of the
>world?  Would that be considered an 'anti-institutionalized religion'
>stand?  Or would it be (correctly) viewed as hateful words coming from a
>hateful person? 

It depends on the person, the way he/she expressed it, etc.  No matter,
though, hateful words are still an opinion valid as any.  You can call
anything with conviction "hateful"...because it "strongly dislikes" the
other side.  Republicans are hateful of Democrats if you go by your
definition....but they go at it everyday in every way.

Perhaps I'm being extremely presumptuous, but I think if Sinead would
have made a statement (or alluded toward a statement) that you agreed
with, you'd have no trouble with it.

>No congregation/race/group should have to put up with this crap.

Wrong....ALL groups should put up with this "crap".  It's the sacrifice
we make for free speech and freedom in general.  If you want a
dictatorship, why don't you just say it?  Lobby for it, try to take over
the country...expose yourself...we'll see how many people agree with
you.

If you're so upset about it, write a letter to SNL or NBC.  Tell them
what you think.  They'd make their decision based on financial concerns,
and if you can prove you're enough of a threat to their advertising
dollar, you'll have an impact.

I don't think Sinead's statement was hateful in the same way that, say,
a Klansman's statements are.  Her's was a productive criticism (then
again, Klansmen think theirs are too).  Let's say, I BELIEVE it was
productive.
 
(I'd like to thank the people who've sent me email of agreement and
support on this issue, I didn't expect it at all)
 

--
 ____                     + Editor, SOUND News and Arts magazine
|____                     + PO BX 31104, Omaha,NE 68131 (lg SASE for copy)
|____ D@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU  + SOUND FTPable: quartz.rutgers.edu(pub/journals) 
(Ed Stastny/UNO/Omaha,NE) +                141.214.4.135(docs/zines/sound)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv