From: jrdobbs@milton.u.washington.edu (J R "Bob" Dobbs)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: music censorship in WA state now in effect
Keywords: fascist censorship (shudder!)
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:58:51 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr9.102556.28910@polari.com> bruceki@polari.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.224240.3316@u.washington.edu> jrdobbs@milton.u.washington.edu (J R "Bob" Dobbs) writes:
>[Some deleted]
>>Yesterday a friend told me the Edge (a "new wave" radio station) was playing
>>a radio song glorifying rape.  I think if there is ANY censorship in society
>[More deleted]

Thank you for quoting me out of context.  Were you really reading
what I was saying, or were you just looking for someone to flame?  
I am probably more critical of censorship than most of people in this
discussion.  Certainly far more than most Amerikans.

>  The song is by a band named "Toe the wet sprocket" and is about the
>anguish suffered when the girlfriend of the song writer was raped.
>The song title is "Hold her down" and some of the lyrics say things 
>like "...the hell they put you through..." "I'm sorry about what a
>man can do...", &c.

Sorry if I didn't hear the song.  A friend of mine who has heard it, repeatedly
 - thought the song was a cheerful exposition on the pleasures of rape.
Since he is also a strong libertarian and didn't express more than profound
regret about the song, I took him seriously.  Maybe the band should
get a clue, and make their lyrics more intelligible.

Of course, there is the distinct possibility that YOU have misunderstood the
song, since you don't even have the band's NAME right. 
(TOAD the wet sprocket). Perhaps you are quoting the DJ's interpretation.

>  You, and other censorship advocates, seem unwilling to either do your
>homework or allow people freedom of choice in what they listen to.  Go
>do your homework.  

You are right on this point, I should have kept my mouth shut until I heard
the song myself. I used it as an example of a non-erotic song, not censored
under the new law, that might be much worse for children/teenagers to hear.
Even so, I'd prefer to see no GOVERNMENT censorship at all.  Market leverage
(ie boycotts) are a fine thing.  For instance, I would have a hard time buying
anything from someone who sponsors Pat Buchanan or Louis Farrakhan, as well
as Andrew Dice Clay.  I certainly wouldn't give KCMU my hard-earned money
if they offended me more than 3 times a day. <---IRONY FOR THE CONTEXT-IMPAIRED
On the other hand, I love Ministry, who offend everyone.

>  "Well, yes, I used to have a right to free speech, but I heard someone
>say it had been used to say bad things, so I guess I don't need the
>right to free speech..."

Well, yes, I used to be a Libertarian, and then I realized that the real
world does have limits, even on free speech. That said, I share your anger
that the gov't sees fit to regulate it when there is no clear and present
danger. On the other hand, how would feel if someone's idea of free speech 
their PERCEPTION of you or your loved one's sexual habits?
Would you use the coercive power of the government to sue them for libel?
Newsgroups: seattle.general