 sj |
||
|
||
PMRC
|
|
|
Subject: PMRC From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 22 Oct 00 - 09:24 AM I kind of forgot about the PMRC until Gore mentioned it in the debate the other night. Is Tipper Gore and that group still doing stuff with censorship ? And does anyone have a fairly objective explanation why Nader was kept from entering the U-Mass debate building? |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lepus Rex Date: 22 Oct 00 - 03:40 PM Lonesome, if I remember right, the PMRC closed down in the early 90s with only one employee left. It was big news in some metal magazine I used to read, but I don't remember seeing it in the papers. But who knows, they may have started up again. Seems like it just sort of whithered and died after a while. The PMRC is the whole reason I despise the Gores. I wish Jello Biafra was still in the race.. Voting for him over the evil, earplug-wielding Gores would be kind of fun... ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Oct 00 - 04:51 PM PMRC? ~Pardon Me, Really Confused |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lepus Rex Date: 22 Oct 00 - 06:41 PM Praise, the Parents' Music Resource Center, a pro-censorship group which was founded by the infamous super-villain, Tipper Gore, and supported by her mindless whore-drone of a husband, Al. They tried to regulate music, album covers, and concerts like they do pornography, back in the '80s. I didn't like them much. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Hotspur Date: 22 Oct 00 - 08:28 PM I sent away for thier literature at one point, NOT because I agreed with them but because I figured it's better to know your enemy before trying to fight. They really were scary, mostly b/c they tried to present their censorship as the kind of thing all concerned parents should support. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: GUEST,CraigS Date: 23 Oct 00 - 01:04 AM Re: Mr Gore. Anyone who kills other people gets tried for it this side of the pond. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 23 Oct 00 - 01:26 AM Lepus Rex, "music, album covers and concerts like they do pornography"? And your point is- ? Have you listened to the stuff? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lepus Rex Date: 23 Oct 00 - 03:19 AM Ebbie, I listen to things that would make Tipper Gore's halo wilt, and things I sure wouldn't let my niece listen to, but I'll always oppose censorship in any form. Like Hotspur mentioned, the PMRC hid their sinister motives behind some sort of parental empowerment thing. But the only thing the PMRC ever actually 'accomplished' (besides making musicians lives miserable) was warning labels on cds, which really only encourages kids to buy them. So I guess they did more harm than good. Which proves my theory: Tipper Gore is the AntiChrist, muahahaha! ;) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Amergin Date: 23 Oct 00 - 03:42 AM Oh god...I remember this group...pathetic |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Whistle Stop Date: 23 Oct 00 - 09:02 AM Well, some of us good, liberal, folk-music-playing Mudcatters happen to think Tipper Gore and the PMRC had a point in raising concerns about some of the crap that is being marketed directly to kids. They didn't advocate censorship (although I am not entirely opposed to it), and they didn't claim that warning labels were necessarily the best answer to this problem. But they highlighted the fact that there's some pretty awful stuff out there -- music that explicitly advocates abuse of women, cop killing, and various other forms of "freedom" -- and at least tried to see if something could be done to counter it. There may not be a lot of people on this forum that agree with me, but I applaud them for a certain amount of political courage and plain good sense. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 23 Oct 00 - 07:32 PM Whistle Stop: exactly. Lepus Rex, it's the stuff that you don't want your niece to be exposed to that I'm talking about. In a previous post, I said that I don't have a problem with knowing that stuff is out there- I'll go farther- I'm sure that it has done some good for some lonely or frightened-of-the-real-world people out there- but having it become main stream is more than I bargained for. Who needs it. If I have to go dash around picking up things I don't want others to see or hear, it's not the kind of life I want. And yet, just as if I were a gun or knife collector, I'm going to keep it out of the reach of innocent or unprotected people I love. Call it censorship if you wish. I calll it sensible. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: rabbitrunning Date: 23 Oct 00 - 08:13 PM Warning labels don't always have the intended effect, but in an age when children listen to music on personal headsets, I think that the idea of letting parents know that not everything out there is harmless wasn't a bad one. It isn't the same thing as censorship -- more like a rating system of sorts. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Greg F. Date: 23 Oct 00 - 09:18 PM Yes, folks, but in the intervening ten years since the PMRC went belly up, who has taken up the crusade and proposed things way beyond Tipper's wildest dreams? The Christian Right. They're the really scary ones now, pushing censorship as 'family values'- "the kind of thing all concerned parents should support". |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Matt_R Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:22 PM Hey Lepus, would it be funny if Al Gore got elected, and Insane Clown Posse played at the Inauguration gala? It would be REALLY funny if they sprayed him and Tippo with a big 3-liter bottle of sodapop? HA HA! |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:44 AM hey, is that Al Gore on the cover of Rolling Stone this issue? |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lepus Rex Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:07 PM Matt, only if GWAR came out afterwards and... Oh, use your imagination. I saw what they did to Clinton, Bush Sr, and the Pope back on their Cam-PAIN tour, and it wasn't kind... Ebbie and Whistle Stop, that's fine, if you don't mind the government deciding FOR you what's decent and what's not. The PMRC wanted cds with 'occult' themes labelled with an 'O,' for instance, which I'd say violates the rights of people who's religions involve so-called 'occult' practices, and who's music would have likely been labelled with an 'O' if that particular plan had been implemented. Would you have approved if the PMRC wanted to label Jewish musicians' cds with a little star of David warning label, to warn Christian parents that their children might be sucked into the wild world of Judaism? I'm sure you wouldn't have. Groups such as the PMRC are doomed to failure. Other than locking your kids up in the cellar, there's no way you can stop them from listening to whatever they desire to listen to. Music's not going to 'turn them bad,' anyways. Whenever some flawed little insect shoots up his high school, their lazy, ineffective parents always blame the music. "Oh, he was so normal and athletic until he listened to MARILYN MANSON!: ... Some people are born scum. Others are raised scum. I've never met any scum who got that way because the listened to scummy music. They're usualy drawn to it because they're dicks to begin with. Bleh... ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lepus Rex Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:17 PM Ah, I found a couple of links... One about href="http://www.ericnuzum.com/banned/eighties.html">80's censorship in general... (you can look at other decades, too---very cool site) And one about T(s)I(a)P(t)P(a)E(n)R! ---Lepus Rex
|
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lepus Rex Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:22 PM Oops! Missing something there, eh? Heh. Go HERE for that first one... :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Whistle Stop Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:32 PM Lepus, I'm not saying the PMRC got everything right. But let's not be so extreme in our knee-jerk reactions. No, I don't want a yellow Star of David on records by Jewish musicians. I also don't want my kids (I have three) constantly bombarded with messages of hatred. Speech and other forms of communication CAN be abusive if taken to extremes -- and I would like to protect my kids from abuse. It is well established in Constitutional law that there are a number of types of speech that the First Amendment does not protect, from the well-known example of "yelling fire in a crowded theater," to all sorts of overt threats against one or another segment of society. There has been a real marketing push behind entertainment that explicitly and pointedly advocates violence against women, minorities, and law enforcement officials. I think reasonable people can and should look for ways to limit this -- within the bounds of the Constitution generally, and the First Amendment in particular. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:50 PM Several points I want to make: 1) When I was a kid, believe it or not, what people worried about having their children exposed to was comic books. Truly. 2) If music and movies and whatever else that our children are exposed to don't color their thinking and their habits and their expectations, then how did our advertising world become convinced that an advertising blitz works? And, make no mistake about it, this is a blitz. 3) Call me idealistic and naive, but I don't understand why the music media doesn't regulate itself. They have children, fuh gawd's sake; is this what they want for them? 4) I'm not suggesting a review on each cd packet or movie, just a designation of what is suitable for that age group. If parents are into horrific scenarios of war and violence and misogyny and dishonoring human life and that's what they want their child to get into and they expose the child to it, I'm not going to stop them. I might pray, though! Because, aside from the fact I consider it child abuse, that mind set may easily cause problems for society later. 5) Shel Silverstein was a wonderful writer, both for children and for adults. His 'adult' stuff was, in a lot of cases, not suitable for children. I'm not aware of any problem there. And, may I add, his adult stuff is not in the children's section of your local library. It doesn't seem all that difficult to me. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: mousethief Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:00 PM How is a rating system censorship? Movies have a rating system in this country, but it's hard to say they're being censored. Censorship means making it illegal to create or publish a certain piece of communication (work of art, speech, whatever). Rating labels hardly constitute censorship, nor does a library deciding not to buy a book, nor does the government deciding not to buy a particular piece of art with the public's money, nor does a school district deciding not to make a certain book assigned reading. A rating system allows parents to know what's in a CD before they buy it for their kids, or allow their kids to buy it for themselves. That's all. Is that so horrid? I'm 100% dead-set against censorship. But only against REAL censorship, not stuff that isn't censorship going under a false label.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:04 PM I agree totally, Mousethief. We're bandying terms for the sake of ire. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:22 PM Yeah. Ban EMinem. THen my daughter will really think he's cool. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: mousethief Date: 24 Oct 00 - 06:25 PM If your daughter thinks banned musicians are cool, you've ALREADY got a problem, methinks. But as we pointed out, the point of PMRC was not banning, but disseminating information. Yes, that's so evil.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 24 Oct 00 - 11:47 PM We are exposed to much diverse info as a culture these days. I'm not sure what to think about that, maybe in the past the "Media" was controlled by a smaller bunch of the very powerful, now, with the ease of communication there are just more points of view out there to be seen. In the fifties didn't they try to force the Pat Boone types on the American youth in fear of the kids listening to blues music or whatever. One thing that sucks is that in this short attention span /hype advertising age we live in, extreme stuff seems to get more attention than subtitle things. Maybe people will just get bored with extreme violence, sex and all the stuff that bothers the PMRC. I know I am, I grew up listening to The Sex Pistols , Iggy Pop, The Minutemen (great band) and all that stuff. Now I'm not interested in it, but I don't think it hurt me, and I think I even learned some things from it. It just seems a bit boring now, but kids find it cool, and I don't think that's so bad. One thing they should censor is all those interactive dolls for kids, and all the plastic junk they sell to kids, and computers. Maybe we should chuck all these computers! |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 25 Oct 00 - 12:27 AM Lonesome Gillette, I was a kid in the 50's and I'm not aware of any kind of conspiracy regarding Pat Boone/types. Even though he was never my favorite- my heart belonged to Elvis and Sam Cooke, et al, he certainly had hits. I don't doubt that most of our parents preferred the bland sounds of P. Boone but I don't think it was caused by the fear of blues but rather the raucous beat of rock and roll. You gotta admit it had changed a lot from the 40's! That's the only thing that gives me hope for the future of the youngsters who are so enraptured with the commercial music of this generation- are you listening, Matt?- I hope that my take on it is just a generational thing. I hope. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Jed at Work Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:39 PM I am happy that my government tries to protect me from agrressive foreign military attacks or renegade terrorist attacks - from the ravages of oceanic erosion or other natural disasters, as much as possible - from illegal and dangerous production of food or medicines - but I don't need the government to protect me from offensive speech. I don't need a governmental watch dog telling Snoop Doggie Dog, the Sex Pistols, Billy Idol or Pete Seeger, Shel Silverstein and Rick Fielding what is and what isn't offensive speech! I don't need Mrs Gore or anyone else telling these artist/performers, how and where they can sing, and to whom they can speak their message! The PMRC was a foolish scheme to begin with. If we can't take control over our choices for art we don't deserve the freedom preserved for us by our US constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:42 PM You really think the PMRC was not about banning? |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: mousethief Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:43 PM Jed, you've missed the point entirely. The purpose of the PMRC was not to take control of anybody's speech, but to allow parents to know what's on an album so they can regulate what their kids listen to. The PMRC at NO point EVER made any suggestion as to restricting sales of records to adults. Yes, I know, it's so evil for parents to want to protect their kids from violent, misogynous, and/or racist music. Those naughty, naughty parents.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:45 PM Oh, yeah, and while I am cross, of course my daughter thinks banned musicians are cool. If you want the mudcat perspective, try any hundreds of "Gypsy Davy" type songs. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: mousethief Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:46 PM Richard: Yes. Is the movie rating scheme about banning? No. Is the video game rating scheme about banning? No. Why should a record rating scheme be about banning? Yes, it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Get one foot in the door with a rating scheme, and the next thing you know only the government will decide what we can and cannot listen to, read, see, etc. etc. Sounds like the nonsense the NRA spews, only from the other side of the aisle. ("If we let them ban cop-killer bullets, next thing you know all guns will be illegal!" and other such rot.)
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:58 PM Jed-at-work, do you have kids? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Fortunato Date: 25 Oct 00 - 06:02 PM IMHOP: I believe it should be illegal to target minors with products or media that depict behaviors that are illegal. It's that simple. No cigarettes or alcohol for minors, likewise no pornagraphy, excessive violence or explicit sexual behavior. If Big Tobacco or Big Alcohol target minors they are hauled into court; it should be the same for the media. Those that cry censorship in this arena are most often not defending their own children from media daily. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Oct 00 - 06:06 PM You want to know about the video rating schemes? Just watch what the UK did. It took from the Video Recordings Act 1979 to court judgments this year just to get the range of things that were banned (via categorisation and excusion from categorisation)reduced. You want to know about music control? I was involved in a folk club which the local council asked to move to its theatre. Then they asked us to sign a contract to say (amongst other things) that any performance would be immediately terminated on the request of any council employee who thought any part of the content might be offensive to anyone. I told them that folk music (amongst other things) told the stories of 600 years of rape, murder, exploitation and war. And yes, I do have a rather absolute view about people like Mrs Mary Whitehouse. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 25 Oct 00 - 06:16 PM It's not that simple, the grey area is vast. Take song lyrics for example, if it were illegal for lyrics that depict violence to be heard by minors they would never hear a song like John Hardy (the list is endless), they would loose a good chunk of all the lyrics ever written. Should kids be kept from watching the 3 Stooges, I've never seen as much violence in my life?(... Maby they should, HaHa) |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: JedMarum Date: 25 Oct 00 - 06:24 PM Alex - I understand that PMRC was not about banning music, their intention was to have it categorized so that standards could be set as to who could purchase it, where it could be played and ultimately who restrict those could hear it. My agrument stands. I don't need the givernment to protect me from the 'bad' things my neighbor or some perfomer might say. I had no problem teaching my kids how to cope with unpleasantness, nastiness, or for that matter; evil. I do not believe it takes a community to bring up my kids. I do not believe the government has business making those choices for me. Yes I have kids; grown now. I did not have to have lessons with them, aimed at understanding the bad things they might have herad from some of the records they brought home and listened to (in their own space). Morality is caught, not taught. They were well equipped to make those decisions without my intervention, and if they weren;t I was quite well prepared to step in and take any remedial actions required. I did not need Tipper or any other Washington Wiper of Other People's Noses to force their opinion on my household. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: mousethief Date: 25 Oct 00 - 06:35 PM Neither Tipper nor nobody else wanted to force their opinions on your household. They wanted to enable you to make your own decisions by giving you information. Knowledge is power. If you don't know that a particular CD has offensive lyrics, you are not in a position to make a decision on it one way or the other. I'm just flabbergasted that people are so uncritical about this. "If it looks like censorship from a distance with my eyes closed, it must be censorship." Tcha.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 25 Oct 00 - 07:19 PM If not censorship didn't they at least want to limit purchace of some material to minors unless they had their parent's consent? When I was a kid that would have been equal to censored for me because my parents would have never been with me at the record store to shop for records. "Come on Dad, let's go down to Newbury Comics and get the new Black Flag record" nope |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:11 PM Children can't buy alcohol or cigarettes or porno magazines, either. What's appropriate to sell to adults and what's appropriate to sell to minors are two completely different kettles of fish.
Alex O..O |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:15 PM Yikes! My li'l mousie got his nose blown off! Poor little guy!
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:24 PM Alex, what's your last message mean? Sounds kinda funny. All I mean't with my last message is that the PMRC could have kept me from hearing some music, and I'd call that censorship. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: DougR Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:29 PM If PMRC was advocating a rating system, who did they propose to do the ratings? I remember when this was a hot topic but not having small children at home I didn't look into it very closely. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:55 PM So, Lonesome Gillette, I suppose you did however say, Dad, come with me so I can get a fifth of gin? And Dad, while we're there, let's get me some cigarettes. You know what he would have done. He would have laughed and said, When you get old enough you can do what you want. Until then, you do what I say. Aaaah. Enough of this. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: JedMarum Date: 26 Oct 00 - 09:15 AM Our regulations that control alcohol say who can buy alcohol, where they buy, where they can consume it, in what behaviors they can and cannot partake while comsuming it, etc. Our regulations that control tobacco products say who can buy them, where they can buy them, where they can partake of those products, etc. Our regulations over sexually explicit material say who can buy it, who can sell it, and under what conditions it can be viewed. Now; let's do the same thing with music. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Troll Date: 26 Oct 00 - 09:46 AM What PMRC was trying to do,I think, was the job that parents SHOULD have been and still shoul be, doing;e.g. being responsible. When my kids were growing up I knew what they were watching on tv and I knew what they were listening to on cd tape or radio. How did I know these things? I was involved with my kids lives and if I didn't approve, it left the house. Did they ever listen to things that I forbade somewhere else. I'm sure they did. I did when I was a kid.But since they knew WHY I disapproved of certain things, they were and are more apt to listen to me. They knew that I had listened and watched all the things that I forbade and had discussed my reasons with them. We may have disagreed in the end but I was always involved.With them. Not with my job or my band or with any of my outside interests. With them, first and foremost. Too many parents take child rearing as a part-time job to be fit in when THEIR schedule permits. Thats why we had and have things like PMRC. troll |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:21 AM Troll, I see your point. I can remember Tipper Ogre (no typo...) and her fight against the evils of music in the early nineties when I was a teenager and still living with my parents. That's a far reaching influence given that I lived in a village in the arsehole of nowhere in Northern Ireland. I was a bit of a Metal Chick then, and my sister and I would arrive home with all manner of scruffy, long-haired leather-clad blokes, but to my parents' credit they never batted an eyelid. My mother was well aware of the music I listened to - I was playing it loud enough (whereas my da just thought it was "noisy"). If she objected to anything, it was my shite taste in music (though she seemed to like most of the ballads!). They were well aware that I could hear explicit language outside of song lyrics. I think they just accepted it as a phase, and rightly so - sometimes I listen to it now, but the shocking stuff now sounds rather pathetic. My mammy is a librarian and hears demands for censorship as part of her job. Her theory is if you can read the print, you can read the book. Perhaps that's why my attitude on imposed censorship AND warnings is that until I regard the person doing the censoring/warning as superior to my judgement in every way, I don't want them telling me what to do. Unless they can prove that they know better than me, I'll take my chances. Real life is tough. And if they're so worried by violence affecting young minds, well the Old Testament is a bit grim... (As for Marilyn Manson, I had no idea he was supposed to be serious. I thought he was a comedy act! Besides, isn't his real name Brian?*BG*) |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Fortunato Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:52 AM Our children are under attack. Yes I am involved with my children. We work play and talk together every day. Recently a 10th grade girl directed my son to a webpage she described as funny. He jumped to it and learned about the terms for every perversion known to man on the title page. I had been in the computer room minutes before, came back and found him goggle-eyed. Why didn't our software block it? I don't know but I'm looking for new software. Fibula, Marilyn Manson, IMHOP is not a joke. It is a performance, but a performance of abominable acts of cruelty and violence has consequences for those who view it. The impact on children's minds is insidiously hard to prove, it is a slow degradation. To those of you who cry censorship PLEASE tell me what I should do. We monitor the cache on our computer. We monitor the music, internet, or otherwise that comes into our house. We restrict television to basic cable and only on weekends and allow no R rated movies. We talk to our children and explain why these restrictions are necessary. But the MEDIA spend billions to defeat us. regards, fortunato
|
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:15 AM Fortunato - is there any way that you can move your computer to an area where it can be seen by you when someone else is using it (e.g. corner of the living room)? That way if they do come across something they know you won't like then they're less likely to keep it up on the screen. But they could well come across this stuff outside of the home, be it on the Internet, TV, magazines whatever. It's certainly not for anyone but you to decide how you raise your children, and I hope you're able to sort this out. I don't have children of my own yet, but I do take youth groups of varying ages and it seems that information gets to kids in one way or another (word of mouth from other youngsters causing all manner of intrigue and misinformation), so I think everyone's on the right track when they discuss the issues with the children themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Whistle Stop Date: 26 Oct 00 - 01:06 PM Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, and I understand the reasons why this idea makes people uncomfortable. We are expressing our opinions here -- let's all resist the urge to demonize those holding opposing positions by suggesting that they advocate more extreme positions than they really do. As an involved, caring father of three, I try to exercise some degree of control over things my kids are exposed to, without raising them in Skinner's box. Popular culture is pervasive, and I have no wish to cut it off entirely; I just like to have a clue what they're coming in contact with. Healthy sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't bother me, but victimization (intentional infliction of pain, force, etc.) does. Violent entertainment is a more serious threat to my kids' well-being, as far as I am concerned -- and again, it is pervasive. Others may draw the lines in different places, and that's fine -- I'm not saying my answers are the right ones for everybody. But if we had some system that gave us a general sense of content, it would help. As for censorship, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but I think it has its place. Explicit advocacy of violence against specific segments of society -- defined by race, gender, religion, occupation, mental capacity, income level, or any similar criteria -- are out of bounds as far as I am concerned, and I think they should be regulated. If I threaten someone on the street with bodily harm, I can and should be arrested. If I issue the same threat more generally through electronic media, I should be equally accountable -- I shouldn't get a free ride by calling it "art". I know censorship is a dirty word to some, but I think we need it when our "free speech" goes this far. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Fortunato Date: 26 Oct 00 - 01:09 PM Yes, of course, Fibula, thank you. But Fibula how can it be morally, ethically, and legally defensible for the purveyors of objectionable material to be allowed to aim these materials at our children? Why am I in this battle? Why, as you say, must I be satisfied with "it gets to them one way or other?" So that others can have the freedom to make money on the loss of innocence of our children and thus the moral degradation of our society. No I think not. regards, Fortunato. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: DougR Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:07 PM Fortunato: Sorry, I have not advice to offer. I'm not sure there is an answer unless it does come down to censorship (which I do deplore). I'm just glad I don't have young children in my home anymore. We had our challenges when my adult kids were children, but nothing like parents of today have. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Troll Date: 26 Oct 00 - 08:17 PM Fortunato, you are doing the right things. The main one is to stay involved with your kids. They look to you for guidance much more than you realize and your influence far outweighs the blandishments of the media. The important thing is to give them a good moral code. Censorship would be unnecessary if more parents were involved with their kids lives, telling them not just THAT certain things are wrong, but WHY they are wrong. troll |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: rabbitrunning Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:38 PM I'm a children's librarian, and there are some things that I won't put in the children's collection. I don't prevent children from checking out books from the adult side, but neither do I feel any compunctions about letting the parents who have expressed concerns about the way that their children use the library know what their kids are interested in. I believe in the "conspiracy of grownups," you see. Yes, children are going to seek out "inappropriate" material, but if the grownups around them are consistently saying that some things aren't meant for kids, the older kids try to protect their younger siblings from that content, and also think about why their parents feel that way. Is that censorship? Maybe. But children are different than adults. I cannot and will not make the library collection into inoffensive pap (Yes, I do have that picture book that PETA put out, and I had Daddy's Roommate until someone colored mustaches on all the pictures) but that doesn't relieve me of the obligation I have as an adult to let a parent know when their ten year old daughter asks for a book about how to make a man enjoy sex more. I like content labels on things, (ooh, keen! A mystery!) in a mild way, but I much prefer considered reviews. I love rap lyric websites. I show every adult who asks how to get to them, so that they can evaluate what their children are listening to with the actual words instead of chunking all of the music with a certain beat into the same category. The parents whose kids I don't worry about that much pay attention not only to labels, but to content too, although sometimes it's the label that got them started. When children are awash in images that tell them that the world is a violent and unforgiving place, they can become violent and unforgiving themselves. Advertising works. A little counterbalancing label isn't such a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock Date: 27 Oct 00 - 05:07 AM Fortunato - are your children still quite young? By saying that the information reaches them in the playground, I mean that often it is their peer group that are adding to the problem. I can remember certain "banned books" circulating amongst the pupils in my school (some risque, some as mild as Judy Blume's "Forever" which many school libraries refused to stock). I know things seem worse today, and in many ways this is due to the Internet. Pornography is one of the driving forces behind the development of new technologies on the Internet (I am not necessarily condoning this, it's just a comment) - the purveyors of adult sites invest huge amounts of money to find the best ways of displaying and dispensing their products. Where children are involved, the areas of censorship are hazier. I deplore the actions of people who wish to censor anything for an adult audience. While I am not anti-pornography I can totally understand your worries about childrens' access to it. I just notice that often children know more about such things than we care to believe. By the time they reach their teenage years they are exposed to many disturbing things, yes, and I take your point that in ideal circumstances they shouldn't be, but real life has many disturbing aspects to it, and we cannot censor what actually goes on the world. It is getting the balance between overexposure and overprotection that is so difficult. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Fortunato Date: 27 Oct 00 - 09:02 AM Nonetheless I will steadfastly defend my children and yours wherever I can. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Oct 00 - 05:59 PM There's this neat little war, see. On the one side all the kids want to find out more, see more, and do more. On the other side half the adults want the kids to find out, see and do only what they are told. I think the MC5 said that if you were not part of the solution you were part of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: PMRC From: Ebbie Date: 27 Oct 00 - 06:29 PM Sorry- I'm back.
One thing we might keep in mind is that the efforts to put this material, whether it's movies, print, videos or music, into the hands of youngsters are not altruistic- and these are not their peers sharing information and entertainment. These are people who are bent on profiting financially - this is an issue of cynicism and greed. Eb |
| Share Thread: |