My own feelings are very much in accord with Maxs'. I found this site because of a lifelong interest in folk song, but I very much doubt if I would have remaioned a regular visitor if the only things available were details of lyrics etc. Folk, however you define it, is a living and universal art form, and as such changes with the times and participants. Which brings in my other concern. What is "objectionalble" is entirely subjective, so I would never support any move to ban material which someone found so. My own particular area of interest may be the next to go under such a regime. Secondly, I would argue that one essential aspect of any art form is to "shock" people, by which I mean that it should enable us to view something in a totally unexpected way. Now many people find being shocked objectionable, quite apart from any content of the material.

Similarly if all folk songs which someone finds objectionable (sexist, racist, lewd, nationalistic etc etc) were removed I would suggest that you would be able to contain the Dt on a single sheet of A4.

Do we then abrogate our responsibilities as artists, archivists or what ever, merely to avoid offence?

For example, and I hope the artist will forgive me for considering her work within the ambit of "folk"; currently there is on display in the Museum of New Zealand an art work consisting of a small figurine of the Madonna inside a condom. Many RC's and other find this very offensive and wish to have the exhibit withdrawn from display(censored). What, in my opionion, they have lost sight of is that the artist is herself a Catholic, and that the work has achieved her reported aim of engendering debate about the catholic position on birth control far more than any "measured and reasonable" debate has ever done.

Finally I would also draw a clear distinction between causing offence, and setting out to deliberately hurt.

Thanks Max for providing the opportunity to debate such important issues within the context of our mutual interest.

Pete M