From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:44:22 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:

>
>In article <1992Sep14.032942.19789@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>> In a previous article, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:
>> >In article <farenebt.716423991@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>> >>I am no fan of censorship but I am wondering how the stickering of
>> >>record albums ("Parental advisory: explicit lyrics") is any different
>> >>from the movie industry rating its movies, G, PG, Pg-13 and R (and NC-17)?
>> >>Why is one ok but the other elicits fervert opposition?
>> >
>> >Both are bad...the difference is that some musicians still are
>> >interested in artistic freedom whereas Hollywood is interested 
>> >only in money and not in art, so they don't really mind censorship,
>> >and impose it on themselves.
>> 
>> 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,
>
>Try opening a theater that shows X rated movies.  You'll find out
>about zoning regulations.

That is true, but it is not an example of the artist being censored by a
label of rating...it is a case of the community deciding that the material
is inaproprate.  (which ISD censorship, and should not be upheld)


>>                                                        it only lets the
>> viewer know what he may be in for.
>
>Really.  Do you know what differentiate a PG-13 from an R movie?

In only the most general terms.  However, that is not the point.  The 
origional poster generated the idea that labeling and rating in and of
themselves constitute censorship.  This is not the case.  

And while others may take the opertunity to use the labels and ratings
in order to censor material in a case-by-case basis, I maintain that
the labeling does not serve to censor the artists.


>
>>                                     Likewise, thje application of warning
>> labels on albums in no way constitutes censorship.
>
>1) Do you know the definition of "explicit lyrics"?  Does anyone?
>2) When retail stores will not stock albums with warning lables, that
>	sounds like censorship to me.

Restraint of trade, definitely, but not censorship, per se.

>>                                                    Labeling only allows
>> parents to be aware that an album may contain material which they may not
>> approve their children listining to.
>
>Do parents know what the record industry considers "explicit lyrics"?
>
Of course there are no absolutes, but again, it does not matter, in this
context.

>> Also, I disagree that Hollywood is not interested in art.  In the last
>> decade, there have been many films which were produced primarily for
>> their artistic value.  Of course, if they made enormous sums of money,
>> so much the better, but that does not discount their value as art.
>> 
>> As an aside, I would be interested in seeing the figures on labeled albums
>> vs. unlabled.  I suspect that labeled albums tend to go gold more often.
>> 
>> >What's ironic is that noone had much problem with Arnie, the member
>> >of the Republican Administration, mowing down cops by the dozen in
>> >T2, while they have a problem with Ice-T!
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> >What's ironic is what gets censored by Hollywood is anything with
>> >a sexual theme, but violence, almost no matter how extremseemed
>> >to be just fine with everyone!
>> 
>> I also agree with this, but realize that there are several groups
>> actively protesting, and lobbying, to reduce the amount of violence
>> in film and on television.
>> 
>> >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.
>> 
>> And while I would seriously oppose any system of rating or labeling which
>> would prevent access to materials,
>
>Which currently happens when retail chains refuse to carry albums that
>have warning lables.
Even if a chain refuses to carry an item, it is available in other stores.

>>                                     or oppress an artist's right to express
>> themselves as they see fit,
>
>Such as the censorship of Ice-T?
>

If you'll recall, Ice-t was not censored.  His label refused to censor
his material, reguardless of the boycots, threats, and other protests.

>>                              I think labeling content is appropriate.
>
>Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Not at all.

>
>>   It also makes more sense...because they you
>> >can get a "rating" from someone whose values you share or have
>> >checked out, rather than some anonymous industry or government
>> >reviewer who for all you know could be an "agent of Satan".
>
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
>
-- 
*...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.****************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45560 alt.politics.usa.constitution:219