Objectionable Material - The sequel

Subject: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Sandy
Date: 01 May 98 - 07:23 AM

Just starting the thread again to keep it in bite size chunks. (Is that a good idea?)

It's been mentioned more than once that the world is full of some pretty nasty things. It's not just a human thing. Many of us have seen the nature programs showing killer whales launching themselves onto beaches, grabbing seals and chucking them about between themselves while the seal tries to escape with its life. Or the chimpanzees hunting down monkeys and tearing them apart. It's all pretty gruesome but it happens and to be honest it's as bad as anything humans are capable of.

The point I'm making is that song is just one way of highlighting the reality of life. The song comes from a point of view. Try composing a song from the point of view of the whale and then from the point of view of the seal for example (then compare to the many whaling songs 'A Hunting for the Whale' or 'Bustles and Bonnets'). The real objection is from people having their eyes opened up to the reality of life. Then compare to Cop Killer.

The benefit the human race has is that it is emerging into a civilisation, dropping the vicious behavour that other animals accept. It's a slow process however and many dreadfull deeds still happen. A few hundred years ago those deeds would have been acceptable and quite legal.

So what is acceptable? It's easier to ask what isn't. My view is the only thing that is truly unacceptable is incitement to do whatever horrible thing is being expounded. Incitement is more than words on a piece of paper. It depends on the context in which the subject matter is put forward. For example, singing a song in a pub about killing whales should be acceptable to anyone as highlighting a point of view or deeds of the time. Singing a song about killing whales prior to or just after a whale hunting expedition in which the singer has participated would be pretty unacceptable to anyone who has a problem with whale killing. I guess the same applies to Cop Killing which a lot more people are likely to have a problem with.

Does this make sense?

Sandy

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Whippoorwill
Date: 01 May 98 - 10:54 AM

No, my dear, it does not make sense. Singing, in whatever surroundings, about any legal activity (granted, whale hunting is for the most part outlawed, so let's agitate the Bambi-huggers) such as deer hunting or logging is a far cry from incitement to murder. That's what Cop Killer is. That's all it is. Nothing political, no acceptable expression of discontent by a minority group, it is simply incitement to a hate crime. Not only should the song be banned, the singer/writer should be prosecuted under the federal hate crimes law.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Sandy
Date: 01 May 98 - 01:17 PM

Whippoor,

You seem to miss the point. Is Cop Killer simply an incitement to commit murder? Cop Killer is written from a perspective. If the composer is intending to commit the said crime or incite others to do it he/she is a nutter that needs locking up and I agree with the statement. If, on the other hand, it is written by a professonal song writer with the intention to be produced and performed by an outfit that portrays anarchy then it is something more.

You contradict yourself as you have in previous messages in another thread. You shirk around the whale scenario and pick a less contentious one instead. I picked the whale issue on purpose because it is so emotive. Reading between the lines, you seem to be indicating that killing whales is abhorrant to you but you couldn't really justify banning the whaling songs so ehm.... let's just ignore that one then.

You are displaying illogical and emotive characteristics. I think that the core of this issue is that seeing the reality of life scares the heck out of you (hence the gun comments in the thread on Cop Killer). Therefore you would rather ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen. The only way to do that is to ban it so you don't hear it or see it or read it.

This is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

What I said does make sense. You just don't agree with it. Let me ask you a straight question. Do you not think my point of view should also be banned for as long as their are sufficient numbers of people who share this stance you don't stand a chance of banning anything. I must be guilty of incitement to have an open mind - DANGEROUS.

Sandy

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 98 - 02:18 PM

"You are displaying illogical and emotive characteristics."
Hmmm. sounds like something Spock might say.....

Anyhow, Sandy, I think we have a situation here where the song "Cop Killer" is more than just an expression of an idea that people can deal with logically and critically, and respond to freely. Whether or not it was the original intent of the writer, this type of song has a power of its own, a power to encourage an attitude of violence. When words persuade or inform, that's one thing; but when they reach a point where they begin to control people, they fall into a different category - propaganda.
If people, especially young people, are exposed to a constant barrage of words that encourage violence, they will be likely to assume an attitude of violence. If their exposure is merely occasional, then the danger doesn't exist. But if it's recorded, kids will play it over and over and over again.That's when I start getting worried. I don't want to see government or corporate control of publishing, but I do think the current parental advisories are a good idea. If there had been ratings when my kids were younger, I could have told my kids they couldn't have any "X-rated" material, and that's that. Since there were no ratings at the time, I had to fight over each and every piece of material that came into question. I also had to listen to all that crap myself. I finally gave up.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Whippoorwill
Date: 01 May 98 - 05:03 PM

You contradict yourself as you have in previous messages in another thread. You shirk around the whale scenario and pick a less contentious one instead. I picked the whale issue on purpose because it is so emotive. Reading between the lines, you seem to be indicating that killing whales is abhorrant to you but you couldn't really justify banning the whaling songs so ehm.... let's just ignore that one then.
Not ducking the whale issue at all. Personally, I would enjoy a good whale hunt, but they're now a protected species, so it wasn't a good analogy. I was drawing a comparison between legal activity and criminal activity. And if you think deer hunting is less contentious, you should have been here when they opened the state parks to hunting a few years ago. Amazing the number of people who would rather let the deer strip the parks bare and then die of starvation and overpopulation than allow them to be controlled by hunting.

You are displaying illogical and emotive characteristics. I think that the core of this issue is that seeing the reality of life scares the heck out of you (hence the gun comments in the thread on Cop Killer). Therefore you would rather ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen. The only way to do that is to ban it so you don't hear it or see it or read it.
Seeing the reality of life does scare the heck out of me. Just yesterday in Indianapolis a bank was robbed, one woman was killed and two or three more injured. A report early this week said that farming and mining are no longer the most dangerous occupations in America - working the night shift in a 7-11 store is! I don't ignore it, I guard against it, and I support the police; I don't threaten to kill them, I don't encourage others to kill them, and I do not support those who do by calling their rantings freedom of expression. For the record, neither do I support the KKK or neo-fascist groups. It's cute to sit there at the computer and debate censorship, but my career as a newsman has given me a taste of reality that you don't get in a coffee house or a pub. I do not write any of this with the intent to offend. I agree with those who said the answer is a return to the family structure and family values, and I know there is no simple solution, but please do not whitewash crime by calling it self-expression.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Earl
Date: 01 May 98 - 05:51 PM

This thread is a bit uglier than the original.

I think there are two distinct questions: "should the song be censored?" and "should the song have been released on record?" The concensus seems the be that censorship is wrong. The second question may be the more important. In this case the record company had the freedom to release or not release the song. They are under no obligation to record and release every song they hear. They are not driven by art or politics or social consiousness. Their only concern is making money. In this case they chose to release a distasteful venting of juvenile frustration, fully aware that the controversy would keep the song alive long past the standard shelf-life of a rap song. Here's where the responsibility lies.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Sheye
Date: 01 May 98 - 06:05 PM

I am way too lazy to read all this stuff, so am offering a personal view that may not be on track.

When I come across something offered for my enjoyment that I don't enjoy, I push the OFF button. I'm a big girl (grown-up, that is) and can make those decisions.

Regarding parenting, my philosophy is that I cannot (and again, I am much too lazy) censor my children's world to suit me. So instead of censoring, I walk through it with them. Example: With garbage music like this, I try to explain at their level that it can be dangerous because of the mob-mentality effect that works on people in groups. Hitler used this exact same technique for propaganda distribution. They (the kids) are already (5 & 8) making choices on their own and I am pleased that they are becoming comfortable reaching for the OFF button by themselves.

Example: One of the homes they visit plays only bible videos, and the mom wanted me to be aware that my children would be exposed to these videos if they chose to be in that home. Becuase of this we have had great discussions about mythology, societal belief systems, and what constitutes a good moral story. They ask me what is God, and I tell them several different views. They ask me if I believe in God and I say not the way organized religions present the concept. The five-year-old has informed me that he believes in God, but is second-guessing the whole Easter-bunny thing. He's using his tools and his mind and making his choices. Would he learn to do this in a censored world?

Now that I've spewed, I'll go back and read the thread...

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Max
Date: 01 May 98 - 08:16 PM

Cop Killer is not a request for action, its a story of what is really happening. It's a commentary that this is what's going on in East LA for instance, this is what kids are talking about. It tells us that something is wrong, and Ice-T knew that it would be hard to deal with just as Jonathan Swift knew that A Modest Proposal (its an intelligent social commentary about poor people eating their baby's to have food and cut down population) would shock the world, because that's what it takes to make a difference in this bull headed world.

You will find a strong and hard to deal with point like this in Art, because Art cuts right to ones heart and soul. When you start splitting hairs about PC and legislative bullshit, you take it completely out of context. Art, in any form, is not objectionable, it is Life. If you don't agree, then either you can't admit this (presumable bad things) is going on in you world, or that the object of inspection is not Art but crued entertainment which by definition is driven by the market not its meaningful value.

My whole hearted and thoughtful position is that Cop Killer is Art.

Now that I've spewed, I'll go back and read the thread... (well said Sheye)

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Art Thieme
Date: 01 May 98 - 09:34 PM

DEAR MAX,

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE COMPLIMENTS! I DO APPRECIATE 'EM!

ART

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Frank in the swamps
Date: 02 May 98 - 07:24 AM

So long as we're kicking around the subject of ART. SAY WHAT?? if somebody HUD'S down this SON of a gun, and I give him a kick? (insert winkie emoticon thing here)

Frank. i.t.s.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 02 May 98 - 12:34 PM

This is such a good discussion, let's expand it a little bit. Has anybody paid attention to other gangsta rap songs? CopKiller is relatively moderate by today's standards. It is also almost a direct copy of several other raps that have become hits (Snoop Doggy Dogg's "Fuck the Police", etc). Then there are the violent pornographic specialists, like 2 Live Crew. They perform lyrics about "fucking up bitches" and "tearing" them up. It is nothing less than pushing extreme violence toward women, in this case during the act of apparently forcible sex, toward the mainstream. White fraternity boys in my previous neighborhood listened to this stuff at their yard parties all the time. Does anyone want to defend this art? To the same extent as CopKiller was defended as social commentary? Learn some more about this phenomenon so we'll all know what we're talking about (I humbly suggest). No disrespect intended, but I'm fascinated by the idea of 5 and 8 year-olds having discussions about mob mentality and societal belief systems. Please tell more.

With real concern, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Earl
Date: 02 May 98 - 08:05 PM

I agree, Sheye has the right idea.

I'm 100% against censorship but I'm pretty particular about what I call art. The Last Poets maybe, Ice-T maybe not.

Subject: Lyr Add: EAST TEXAS RED^^
From: Art Thieme
Date: 02 May 98 - 08:26 PM

Here's one that might be "objectionable" to some. It's probably the least compromising song that Woodrow Wilson Guthrie ever wrote!! I present it here to honor the Haymarket martyrs!!! This song covers hard times, up-against it folks, sadistic bulls and surgical revenge! When the social system fails and the basics of life (food-shelter-dignity) are denied to those who have trickled down and fallen through the many holes in the so-called safety net, folks are sometimes forced to resort to drastic measures to ensure survival during hostile times. This is on Cisco Houston's last LP for Vanguard---___I AINT GOT NO HOME___. It is also on one I did, ___That"s The TICKET___(Folk Legacy FSI-90)

Art Thieme

"EAST TEXAS RED"
by Woody Guthrie

Down in the scrub oak country of the south-east Texas gulf,
There used to ride a brakeman--and a brakeman double tough,
He worked the town of Kilgore and Longview 12 miles down,
And the 'boes all said little East Texas Red was the meanest bull around.

It was on one cold and drizzly day long about nine or ten,
A couple o' bums on the hunt of a job stood in the blizzardy wind,
Hungry and cold they knocked on the doors of the working people all around,
For a piece of meat--a carrot or a spud--for to boil their stew around.

Now, whether you ride in the dim moonlight or the shimmering heat o' the sun,
You can always see little East Texas Red just sportin' his cool running gun,
And the tale got switched down to stems and mains and everybody said,
That the meanest bull on them shiny irons was little East Texas Red.

Now Red he come on down the line and he waved old number two,
He kicked their bucket over a bush and dumped out all of their stew,
One of the boys said, "East Texas Red, you better get your business straight,
'Cause you're gonna ride that little black train just one year from this date.

Now, Red he laughed and he clumb the bank and he jumped on the side of a wheeler,
The boys caught a tanker for Seminole, then north, to Amarillo,
They found them a job of oil field work and followed that pipeline down,
It took 'em to a hell of a lot of places before that year had rolled around.

Then on one cold and drizzly day they caught them a gulf-bound train,
Shivered and shook with the dough in their pockets to the scrub-oak flats again,
They followed the ties past the cinder dump 'til they come to the very same spot,
And there the same old 'boes sat down around that same stew pot.

The smoke from their fire went higher and higher and Red come down the line,
He shivered and shook with the snow in his face as he waved old number nine,
He followed the ties past the cinder dump 'til he come to the very same spot,
And there he spied the same old 'boes settin' 'round the same stew pot!

Red went to his knees and he hollered, "Please, don't pull that trigger on me,
I did not get my business straight...", but he did not get his say,
A gun wheeled out from an overcoat and it played the old one-two,
And Red was dead when the other men set down to eat their stew.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 02 May 98 - 08:37 PM

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who once said, in an opinion on a tricky constitutional case, that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". I assert that they same is true of societal (but not governmental) censorship. I know that this awful music is not the only thing that leads my students (convicted of crimes, every one) to seek the gangsta ideal, but it certainly is a powerful part. Censorship of speech or ideas is a scary, dangerous thing, but in these unprecedented times I am more afraid of the effects of too much tolerance when it comes to violence. Please understand, many have tried and failed to out-liberal me, but I am not willing to enter into a "suicide pact" to support the letter of the first amendement while children are literally dying around us. We are not called upon by morality or duty to do so. Would we forgive Hitler for his crimes, because upon careful study we learned that his childhood was pretty terrible? A weak, alcoholic father, a cruel overbearing mother, thwarted in his artistic and professional goals. If he had had a social worker like the ones who work with my students he'd be smelling like a historical rose. We fought the nazis because we had to, because morality and duty demanded it. It's clear to me, and I wish I could make it clear to more of you, that we have to do the same thing regarding the present subject. These words (CopKiller, Fuck the Police, etc) do not represent the view of any community that I know. It is only for money, and it is more dangerous than you think. Check the letter from Leprechaun toward the end of the "Cop killer is objectionable" thread.

Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Art Thieme
Date: 02 May 98 - 08:45 PM

Chet, yin & yang---2 sides to every coin. Of course, YOU'RE RIGHT! But so was Woody.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 May 98 - 11:26 PM

Chet, these words, 'are' how some communities feel, it certainly was in my neighbood. By the age of 10 I was beaten by police for asking directions in the subway, the rag tag kid that I was, was somewhere he didn't belong, I watched them (police) with their hands out demanding $5 to take my younger sister to the hospital in an emergency or rot and I watched more, as I got older, put money in their pockets & look the other way, while their partners sold dope to support their own habbits. This was the norm where I came from. No, I would not fogive Hitler, he chose his life by his own actions, no matter what the reasons, I would think it better to correct & heal the sick society that spawned the monsters that were part of that atrocity as well as those that stood by & let it happen by just watching, there are those who say never again, we will not let the world forget (it still happens elsewhere). I don't hate cops, it's like Art's ying & yang, some good some not so good, it's the breeding ground that smells fowl. All you from the 60's remember the words "every cop is a criminal & all the sinners saints", not so but their was a push for banning it from the airways, is this that much different, or do we grow stiff with age & comfort, & do we no longer have a sympathetic eye for those who can & sometimes do take the fall for all of society's ills. I don't think it's artistically worth spit but it's a form of speech, even if it's as scary to us as the US Constitution was the the Brittish, & they eventually forgave us, but those words were a forwarning of what was wanted. I would prefer these words, that are less damaging, than the scenes not censored on the movies & TV, which dehumanizes my daughter & wife's gender, so that some would think that to abuse is to amuse, & of the multiple mutilations that desensitizes a human into eventually excepting this gore as a form of art, sorry Art. I don't remember which serial killer said don't let the kids watch TV, my 8 year old boy changes the station, & tells me that what was just played was racist, he takes more responsibility for his child like actions than what I think most give us humans credit for. The gun kills it's intended target but it's the hand that pulled the trigger that's responsible for the life of the victim (as opposed to "it's not the gun that kills but people") in the same light it's not the song that kills, it's people. There's talk about whales, I see news blurps that cover the plight of whales, fur bearing creatures, deers & mose loose in town, some rescue of a treed cat, done with more sensitivity than a poor child lost or raped, or the death of a rich princess. I just really feel that the censoring of a song is very cheap place to start, in the scope of what's out there. Barry

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 03 May 98 - 01:54 PM

Barry, I agree with everything you said. The police you describe from your own youth were criminals, but there is no virtue in coming back at them as worse criminals, as the gangsta crowd does. Your song that you posted on the last thread has much more moral power than all the gangsta rappers combined. What I am saying is derived from the genius of Dr. King (back in the 60's), which is to say that a non-violent response to authorized criminals (I know they exist, even today in the US) has many times more moral power than shooting back at them. The world is forced to look at the former, and learn. In the latter scenario, I think people tend to say to themselves that these two groups of criminals deserve each other. Another important point that I am trying to make is that the present situation is an emergency. My former students are dying or killing every day, in part to approach this glamorized gangsta ideal (not this one CopKiller song). We are on the verge of losing an entire generation of Americans, and if we have to make some compromises to stop it, then let's get started is what I say. Standards for cops need to be higher; Standards for criminals need to be higher. I appreciate your input. I hope mine means something too.

Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From:
Date: 03 May 98 - 05:01 PM

My own view is that people are more concerned about seals and whales than what is going on in urban areas today.

I seem to recall that some of the heavy metal songs from the 70's were pretty extreme in their views, although no specific lyrics come to mind right at the moment. (And could there be a song more sexist than Under My Thumb? Perhaps that Paul Anka song about having my baby.) And I think some traditional folk songs are pretty bloody too -- murders, robberies, rapes, and general all round cruelty.

Besides, by banning things you lend them a certain legitimacy. I am convinced that the reason why so many young people smoke is because of all the hysteria in the past few years -- it is now a rebellious thing to do and annoys the old boomers who never would have stood for anything being banned in their own youth. Ban tobacco, and you'll have a new Prohibition with gangsters and Canadian smugglers making millions.

BTW, I wonder how many old boomers outraged by the gansta rap that disturbs them as they mow their lawns used to support The Black Panthers or The Weathermen all those years ago? They did far more than talk about violence.

I don't think gansta rappers are going to stop singing gangsta rap because a few middle class folks in the suburbs object.

I don't like other people telling me what music I should listen to, so I try not to lecture others on the subject.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Pete M
Date: 03 May 98 - 05:59 PM

I'll try not to repeat previous arguments, and yes I do think breaking this thread into reasonable sized chunks is a good idea.

I agree with Max about the purpose of art (not Art (grin)).

To return to posts at the begining of this section, my main concern with Whippoorwill's views is that it appears to be founded on a concern for legality only. That I, or anyone else, breaks the law in opposing Government policies bothers me not one iota, thats a person ethical decision. Likwise, how we oppose it. Personally I do not think violence ever did anything except beget more violence, (which doen't mean I'm a pacifist, just that I recognize violence is not a solution). As has been noted before and again by both Barry and Chet above, the best way to ban this type of song is to remove the cause. But as thats too hard, the reaction to hide the symptoms arises. Unfortunately this reaction not only fails in its intent, but has the corollory of devolving to "Authority" the right to make decisions on what we should *all* think or express. Socrates is probably the best known example of where this leads, but there are plenty of modern examples - the efficiency of the CIA in making Pete Seeger, Paul Robeson and many others "non people" in the fifties was at least as high as that achieved by the NKVD, and done for the same reasons - opposing the interests of the majority as percieved by the Government.

And, let's not forget that the American declaration of independence was an illegal act carried out by people willing to kill those protecting the rights of the de jure Government.

Pete M

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 04 May 98 - 06:23 AM

Artfullness. Just because something is artful, doesn't make it thoroughly good. Sure, stuff it away somewhere for historians and folksong enthusiasts to ponder over, but right now, its net effect may be so obviously harmful that it shouldn't be promoted or promotable.

I think if songs are good enough, most will endure regardless of censorship. So the "art" won't be lost.

Is it important for people TODAY to know that they are not alone in being angry at cops, at wanting to kill them sometimes? Maybe it helps some people a little bit. Most already know their shared anger. Celebrating the anger only increases it. Does Cop Killer help outsiders TODAY to understand the anger of its creators? I think MOST people today would close down their minds and just feel angry at the singers. It's a song aimed solely at people who are ALREADY angry at cops.

I love that East Texas Red song. I'd sing it in a second. It's about an angry guy killing a heartless guy. On the other hand, I'd never sing the hobo's lullabye verse that suggests there are no good cops (imagine the bravery of that tank commander in Tianamen Square who REFUSED to run down the dissident?) I love Mack the Knife. Maybe we would have lost these songs if censors had been more active. I doubt it though. I think a five year old would see an obvious difference between East Texas Red and Cop Killer. I think Art can too, though he chooses instead to see the similarities.

It's surprising to me that Chet says Cop Killer is a moderate song. Should there be broad censorship of these more hateful songs. Yeah, I guess so. If Chet says it's worse, it probably is.

Barry said, "I just really feel that the censoring of a song is very cheap place to start, in the scope of what's out there." I agree. I wonder WHAT is going to happen in the States when their national welfare time limits begin to kick in.

And away, away back when, someone asked if putting offensive material in the database, and the discussion forum was ok. I think it is. Don't sing it to me though.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Art Thieme
Date: 04 May 98 - 02:02 PM

Eamon Hennessey said (via Utah Phillips) "an anarchist is someone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do!"

I'd love for that to be the case for me always! Ideally, that IS the case. In reality we do seem to need GORT to keep us from blowing up the world! (GORT was the robot cop in _The Day The Earth Stood Still_)

Communism strived to protect us from our own natures---ie. the excesses of Capitalism---But those same natures (people stuff) got in the way of Communism being successful just as it keeps Capitalism from providing for everyone.

Under communism, man exploits man; under Capitalism, it's just the reverse! That's why we need cops! Being PEOPLE (with all that that entails), our very natures will make those cops both good and bad!!

Art

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 04 May 98 - 09:45 PM

I don't know about everybody else, but as I tried to make clear everytime I mentioned it, I do not want government censorship. I want communities to do what we have successfully done with the Ku Klux Klan and others - marginalize hate speech and incitement to violence speech until the perpetrators of such have to hide their faces in public (as the Klan has always done). I harp upon rap because that's what my incarcerated students chant as they walk down the school halls. I never hear them do heavy metal, but I feel the same about today's heavy metal as I do about rap. I think it is enourmously immature for somebody to draw distinctions between hate speech (or art, if you like) produced by one societal group and condone it by another group. Unfortunately, CopKiller is moderate in the horror of its message. Educate yourselves! Listen to some more of this crap before you start defending it as a genre. Go somewhere and take a look at where its effects are directly being felt. Talk to the parents of the kids who are making these "artists" rich. They (the parents) don't like it, they don't relate to it, it is not a part of their culture. It is a money-making machine taking advantage of the misery of others. As is, I'm afraid, much of the juvenile justice system. Again, if Hitler (to use an extreme example) could have gotten himself a social worker like the ones we have where I work, he would today be remembered as the primary victim of World War II.

Much more to say, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 04 May 98 - 10:50 PM

I think, Chet, you've been very clear all along that you were against government censorship of the music. Sorry that I didn't restate your objections when mentioning some of the other points you'd raised.

If token censorship (that is, censorship aimed only at removing the bulk of the profits from the business) is excluded from the options, I'd say leave the songs be and concentrate on what Barry suggests: improving the lot of the average unemployed and under-employed citizen.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 05 May 98 - 12:32 AM

Someone, Chet I think, said you *could* get the recipe for nerve gas pretty easily. So I checked out what I could find out about the anarchist's cookbook. I was surprised to find so much nasty information and suggestions about bombs, fraud, theft, and vandalism. But no, there wasn't even any recipe for even run-of-the-mill poison gas in the Anarchist's Cookbook, and I couldn't find it anywhere else either. I think it's illegal to print, sell, or possess books like the Anarchist's Cookbook in Canada. Seems like a good idea to me, even if the net has made such censorship obsolete. :-)

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Leprechaun
Date: 05 May 98 - 02:07 AM

I have access to several copies of the Anarchist Cookbook at my office. I think they were seized at various marijuana grows and methamphetamine labs. If somebody has that book, it's reasonable for me to treat them as more of a threat than somebody who has a copy of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. And if I'm dealing with somebody who has a cop-killer CD, I'd be stupid not to consider that in my threat assessment. That doesn't mean I unsnap my gun every time I hear a rap beat. Even somebody with a Woody Guthrie album could suddenly reach under the seat and pull out a gun and kill me with it. There are things they teach you from the time you're just a baby cop. It's an indispensible attitude, that there's one very important thing you absolutely must do every day. It's a rule, written in stone:

Go home in one piece.

They probably don't have access to the internet or the Mudcat in a hospital room.

But I chose to be a police officer in the United States of America and to support and defend the Constitution. That means that even the vicious gangsta brat, or the snot-nosed upper class frat boy, gets to listen to whatever stinky music he wants, and to say whatever he wants, and I'm sworn to defend those rights. He has the right to be full of shit up to his eyebrows, as long as he doesn't break the law. He can sing about killing cops, but I won't point a gun at him as long as I can see his hands are empty. Let him sing. I'll just be that much more careful.

And that's my suggestion as far as government censorship. Don't censor language or art. But each individual has a responsibility to be careful with it. Put it under a light. Examine it. If people are sceptical of the police, they also need to be sceptical of the critics. I enjoy the Woodie Guthrie song about Pretty Boy Floyd, even though in a sense it offends me.

...Well a deputy sheriff approached them In a manner rather rude Using vulgar words and language And his wife she overheard

Well Pretty Boy grabbed a log chain And the deputy grabbed a gun And in the fight that followed He laid that deputy down

But I can't help but picture myself as the maligned deputy that Pretty Boy whacked with the log chain. The deputy ain't around to tell his side of the story to old Woodie Guthrie, and folks who write folk music are given to hyperbole. That's part of the folk process. But it is not documentation.

It's been fashionable to hate cops and glorify outlaws since before Robin Hood. I sometimes wonder if the Sheriff of Nottingham might have been a damn nice fellow who just didn't have a balladeer on his payroll.

Some of the people who listen to Cop Killer will find that the time may come when they're in a pickle, and it's going to be a cop that comes and saves their little anarchist butt.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Bruce O.
Date: 05 May 98 - 12:44 PM

I don't believe in any censorship for mature adults. But how can one draw a line between immature and mature? Even if one could do such, how could access to material be restricted without some government run testing program for a 'pass' card or personal verification#?
There's a lot of bawdy and some obscene material on my website, but I don't think anyone without considerable education can even understand it.

I don't believe in making the extreemes known to young or immature persons. It doesn't have to be only bawdy. It seems that many ugly things out of the ordinary can have effects ranging up to traumatic to someone completely unaccustomed to it. I've seen enough that I don't think I can be shocked anymore, but I can get pretty disgusted sometimes.

Comments anyone?

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 12:49 PM

This thread reminds me of the experiences of some people I know who were recruited into a New Age doomsday cult. The mother finally got herself and two children out, but not until after her three year old daughter had been molested by a man that the "Guru" had told her to marry. Knowing what happened to them led me to research thought reform, fraud, and the way our precious freedoms are used by con artists to get away with unethical and illegal behavior. This particular cult has moved its headquarters several times from state to state. When it was in California, it lost a lawsuit brought by a former member. I found a statement by the California state court that said, religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated ACTIONS are not. In other words, believe what you want, but your beliefs do not give you the license to commit fraud, coercion, psychological manipulation, etc. I am more concerned now about how vulnerable people (esp. children) have their minds so easily manipulated. Until I studied this phenomenon, I didn't realize how easily intelligent, good people can be shaped by the thoughts that are fed to them.
alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 05 May 98 - 01:45 PM

Alice, very interesting to suggest parallels between the subject at hand and doomsday or other cults. I'd be interested if you could point me in the direction of what you learned in your research. It is amazing how easily even mature adult minds can be manipulated. I guess the most pervasive example is in advertising as practiced in the US. One phenomenon that baffled me from the beginning was and is the frenzy that people of all social groups feel to pay for the privilege of carrying advertising on their clothes for private corporations. A quick story: In 1990 my wife and I visited Czechoslovakia. (She had left in 1980 and, that act being illegal, we were not able to go there until the communists had lost power). One day on the streets of beautiful Prague we saw a young man wearing an expensive-looking leather jacket with elaborate embroidery on the back that read "Harley-Davidson T-Shirt". There were several other sightings of such meaningless but vaguely American fashion, but this was the best. Of course in that case it was as much an expression of anti-Russian as it was pro-American T-shirt. I never thought at the time that this was similar to what happens here every day; People pay huge amounts of money for clothes with the manufacturer's name writ large. Last Christmas season I was walking through a fancy department store here in South Carolina when I saw a rack of ordinary sweatshirts, at 85 dollars each, that had embroidered on their fronts "Calvin Klein Jeans". Then a day or two afterwards at a Christmas party I saw a friend of a friend wearing the very shirt. My feeling is that if we wear the name of a business on our clothes, they should be paying us, not the other way round. But people do it constantly. I see kids, including my students, who don't look like they get enough to eat, but they're wearing 150 dollar shoes with "Nike" or some other such name; Shirts, pants, hats and underwear and hats with "Tommy Hilfiger" prominently displayed. A security guard was shot in an Atlanta mall last fall (I was there) when he tried to stop three kids, age 14 to 16, who were trying to steal Tommy Hilfiger clothes from Macy's. Advertising is speech. Advertising profoundly affects behavior. There are of course other forces at work but there always are. The same is unavoidably true for speech (or art, if you like) that is not overtly commercial, but has that little shred of content that people see as political, protection-worthy speech. There is a powerful notion of brotherhood ("no defeat, no surrender") that goes with the clothes, and with the songs. If all that was at stake was a matter of taste, I would not be so persistent and passionate about this subject, but children are dying every few minutes partly because of this mystique. I see nothing wrong with people of good will practicing social marginalization on these money-makers, just as we did with the Ku Klux Klan and just as we'll have to do again with skinheads and neo-nazis. (Did you see the huge nazi rally in Leipzig, formerly East Germany, on the news last week?) I don't want it to be the case again that, by the time they come for me, there's nobody left to say anything.

Hope this makes sense, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 02:50 PM

One more aspect of this thread topic is the difference between what is illegal and what is unethical. We as a society are collectively responsible for protecting our quality of life by nurturing what we decide is ethical and and speaking out about what is unethical (even if it is legal). We shape the environment we live and pass on to the future by the behavior we either promote or discourage. We don't have to pass laws on everything, because if the majority of us take on the responsibility, we can collectively communicate what we consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Unfortunately, the idea that 'anything goes' as long as it is legal, has gotten our children into a quagmire of bad choices. (I'll get off the soapbox now.)

Alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 02:58 PM

Chet, I can't get the message center here to work. You can email to me at [e-mail]

alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 05 May 98 - 03:53 PM

Alice, don't get off the soapbox. You said what I was trying to say, only more succinctly.

I can feel this discussion winding down, but I hope we've all learned something from each others' views. I was just watching CNN (I'm home sick today) and they were discussing the TV coverage of the man who shot himself on an LA freeway last week. While many people expressed revulsion and pronounced the coverage unnecessary and possibly harmful to children, TV executive types were pointing out that their ratings skyrocketed during the live coverage. At some point we have to start saying something about this sort of thing, loudly.

Looking forward to more discussions, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 05:29 PM

Chet, what you described on the part of the TV execs. is "pandering"... catering to and exploiting the weaknesses of others. Your example fits my point exactly. Just because something is legal (and in this case, even profitable) does not make it ethically good. The way in which television "news" has changed from objective, intelligent journalism to tabloid pandering in order to get high ratings and fill 24 hours of air time, shows how greed has motivated editorial decisions. We are allowing our culture and our children's minds to be filled with junk, just because someone is making a profit from it. We have lost ethical principals to govern our conduct.

alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Harald
Date: 05 May 98 - 05:45 PM

That´s the point, Alice. What would you suggest to do against it ? Censorship is no way of choice, besides it will not work. I remember schoolmates that were keen on getting censored computer-games, just because they were forbidden. Furthermore there will always be enough people unscrupulous enough to publish everything if it´s for their profit.
I really don´t know.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 06:03 PM

As I posted in my earlier comment, we don't have to pass laws on everything. We do have to take personal and group responsibility for the type of society we are creating. This discussion in itself shows the value of free speech. The con artists and panderers have been around forever and will continue, but we can protect ourselves from them by being informed of their methods and motives. We can improve our future by choosing to live ethically, and guiding our children in how to use critical thinking in making decisions about thier own conduct.

Alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From:
Date: 05 May 98 - 07:07 PM

Well, people have been advocating killing members of my own profession for centuries. Happens occasionally, but normally we just get mocked in beer ads.

I personally have no use for rap or hip hop no matter what the lyrics -- a jumble of angry noises, it seems to me. But in free countries we have to tolerate other people, even if they have extreme views and like to listen to pounding distortion.

BTW, I don't believe that it is illegal to own or sell The Anarchist's Cookbook in Canada. I once purchased a similar book for its comedy value -- it was about fighting a revolution in the streets and how to make home-made machine guns and such. Various police and military friends of mine hoped that any revolutionaries they had to face would use this book, as they would end up killing themselves before they even hit the streets.:)

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: tina kinslo
Date: 05 May 98 - 07:12 PM

Yes, Alice, et. al, good, reasonable, intelligent people can be and ARE pursuaded and moved towards change by ideas, words, etc. espoused by others. We/they can be drawn into doomsday/other cults, or we/they can be challenged towards good deeds, etc. My balking with your arguement comes with your proposal that we as a society do not need laws for everything, because we can collectively organize and propose that which is moral and good. This is exactly what the religious right does (or thinks it does) to prohibit me from attaining civil rights that heterosexual people take for granted. To me, the moral majority are the panderers, con artists, the no-goodnicks of which you speak. And yet, their words are very influencial on many of their followers...to the point of sending in their live's savings...to the point of brainwashing.

It's not a matter of easy answers here.

Tina

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 07:36 PM

Tina, I didn't say we don't need laws. I agree with you that there is a problem with which 'majority' wants to impose their definition of ethics on the rest. No easy answers. I'm not making any 'proposal' of a collective organization. It is a matter of personal responsibility.

Alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 98 - 09:04 PM

For those interested in wandering around on websites related to the topic of ethics, here is a page of links:
http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/dig-res.html

One of the sites titled "Institute for Business and Professional Ethics (DePaul University)" has this description in part....'teaching and training individuals to think before they act. Our aim is not to design or impose rules, regulations and controls. Instead, we will concentrate on stirring an individual's conscience by stimulating moral imagination; by encouraging ongoing ethical debate; and by insisting upon individual responsibility.'

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: rosebrook
Date: 05 May 98 - 09:51 PM

Alice,

I heard Tina's concern being about your posts which repeatedly mentioned "group", not individual responsibility. One example: "We don't have to pass laws on everything, because if the majority of us take on the responsibility, we can collectively communicate what we consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior." Groupthink scares me, too.

Rosebrook

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Alice
Date: 06 May 98 - 12:32 AM

You left out my line.. "have to take PERSONAL and group responsibility.." I didn't intend it to be interpreted as 'group think'. My point is that each individual's choices add up to affect the entire society. I'm a rugged individualist to the core. But, I do think my statement is accurate in describing how trends are set, for good or ill, by groups of people making similar choices. The more people buy violent lyrics, the more they will be produced. I have worked hard over the last five years to help people who have been harmed by self-righteous groups (left wing, right wing, and everywhere inbetween). Laws are not enough when people have no conscience to follow them.

alice

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 May 98 - 03:45 AM

Sometimes, it seems to me that most people in our society have no concept of ethics whatsoever. Ethics and responsibility have been replaced by legalism. People want all sorts of laws to dictate the behavior of other people, but they seem to think they're completely free to do whatever they want to do that isn't expressly forbidden by law. Worse yet, they'll go one step further and swear to the righteousness of everything they can do without getting caught.
Sometimes, it seems to me that the worst slaves to this sort of legalism are peace officers, and I don't understand why. I do background investigations on peace officers and applicants for peace officer positions. Most are wonderful people, but a good number are not. I recall one police officer who has been arrested for drunk driving 4 times since 1995 - and convicted only once. The last time, he staggered away from his wrecked truck on the side of the road and didn't contact the police to report the accident until a day and a half later, when he was sober. Another told me how he'd been able to make a profit from filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. These people consider themselves to be law-abiding because they know how to avoid getting caught, and they're very self-righteous about their behavior. I come across one incident after another like this, and most seem to involve some sort of clever, wheeler-dealer twisting of the truth. Their battle cry seems to be, "Well, it's legal, isn't it?" It drives me crazy, although I do admit that I get a certain pleasure out of whittling them down to size.
On the other hand, I have to say that the majority of applicants and officers I encounter are bright, idealistic, good people. But why is it that so many of us have become such slaves to the law, where principle doesn't seem to matter any more?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 06 May 98 - 12:56 PM

There are so many examples of insidious mind control that we could never cover them all. Advertising, politics, "community standards" - many of them try to pose as establishing ethical models for us to follow; Others are transparent self-preservationists. The Southern Baptist Church, the largest protestant denomination in the world (of which I am a recovering member/victim), decided to boycott the Disney corporation because 1) they didn't like some of their movies and 2) because they didn't like the fact that Disney provided spousal insurance benefits to homosexual couples. Doesn't sound like any Christian ethic that I know of. As to transparent self-preservation, we had a nationally embarassing incident here in Columbia, South Carolina last week, in which the principal of Irmo High School retracted approval he had already given for a concert that the Indigo Girls were going to give for free because he found out that they were homosexual and he had recieved angry phone calls from parents (turned out to be 30-40 calls out of a 3000 student school). He did the most cowardly thing there was to do and claimed that it was in the interest of community standards. As a teacher in a juvenile prison, I meet good cops and good administrators, but mostly I meet those that don't give a damn as long as they hang on to their power and their paychecks. I think if communities would stand together for something positive, such as opposing violence and supporting fairness, the results could be as dramatic as the negative ones we see every day.

Trying to pay attention, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: tina kinslo
Date: 06 May 98 - 06:36 PM

Interestingly enough, Chet, the principal at your local high school made the initial decision to allow the group's participation after sampling their music. The decision to ban them from playing was not about their art. It infuriates me! This subjective morality, well, reading the posts that hint at it prompted me to contribute after over a year of lurking. (Hey, it's not that scary in here after all!)

So, yes, we need laws. Yes, we need morals and ethics. As a minority (racially, religiously, sexual orientation), I'm on my guard when other people's morals effect my legal rights. The song Cop Killer (remember that?) is not ethical, doesn't have any redemptive value, and is just plain offensive to me. But I defend someone's right to speak those things that are unethical and reprehensible to me. If not, will I next be censored for singing a lesbian love song? That's all I'm saying.

tina

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 06 May 98 - 07:13 PM

Tina, don't take this as being skeptical, but, knowing that such hate speech often gets the result that it overtly asks for (eg.-the killing of an African student a few years ago after a speech by a KKK leader visiting a town in the northwest in which he told the skinhead crowd to "go out and kill some niggers"), would you defend their rights if the song was, instead of CopKiller, maybe CatholicKiller or HomosexualKiller or NiggerKiller? I will defend true first amendment rights to the last drop myself, but the responsibility for hate speech and its results has to belong to the speaker, and people of good will do not have to defend it as if it really were political or cultural speech. Of course it's legal, but morally it is indefensible, and we don't have to pretend that it's not. One thing that saddens me is that in the US the only people who are usually willing to use words like morality in public or private speech are the right wing nuts like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, etc, so that the only discussion most people get to hear about morality is through these distorted mouthpieces. In other countries, such as my wife's native Czech Republic, President Vaclav Havel often uses the M-word in speeches. He is a great inspiration, if only to the choir, but hopefully it goes farther than that.

Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 06 May 98 - 11:18 PM

Critical thinking can be aided by law:
Critical thinking tells me there's not a lot of point in writing this down. I sure don't think I've convinced anyone so far that limited censorship is worthwhile. I guess I don't have a lot of self control :-) Now if Max suggested we LIMIT our posts to three per day, that would probably have given me the extra self control necessary to just sit back and let some other people do the talking for a while. All I'm saying is critical thinking helps, but often needs help. Laws can often BE that extra bit of help.

Critical thinking can often make things worse:
Another drawback on relying on critical thinking is: what if the individual doesn't care at all about the common good? A few people don't. Most people care a little more about themselves than the common good, but what if the individual cares MUCH more about his personal good than the common good? Lots of people are like this. Critical thinking will lead them to act immorally WHENEVER they can do so with impunity (i.e. whenever they expect no penalties will follow)...simply because they are capable of enjoying themselves despite the suffering they cause. Here is where I'd agree with Chet -- laws are not enough to keep this tendancy in check. We must harrass the worst of those who harm the common good for personal gain, or their critical thinking will show them ways to furthur harm society.

Ethically empty law can be effective:
Ever notice that the most likely time for a speeding ticket is on dry pavement with excellent visibility on a Sunday afternoon with almost no traffic along a non-residential stretch of road? It's the cops again, being asked to act according to the letter of the law in order to fill the city coffers. So if we're not rich, we drive more slowly than conditions demand. Laws can be effective, even when we don't follow them for moral reasons.

Cops shouldn't routinely follow their consciences:
Wouldn't most of cops' consciences tell them to simply execute or produce false evidence against a large proportion of the criminals they encounter? Don't they *already* do this a little too often?

Censorship reduces distribution of an idea:
Tim - Our censorship laws have changed a lot. Maybe bomb-making books are now legal in Canada. I think individual customs officers still have a HUGE say in turning away FOREIGN books though, and they ABUSE this right, for example by harassing a Vancouver Gay and Lesbian bookstore (a good example of badly delegated censorship authority). Back when there were all sorts of anti-pornography laws in Ontario, pornography was much scarcer (in towns that didn't border the US). Agreed, the porn business had higher profit margins, but it was much, much smaller. While I don't advocate a crackdown on porn, the former crackdowns are an example that censorship is fairly effective in modern times.

Censorship just publicizes?
Censorship the press regards as unfair is well publicized. The Barenaked Ladies (thrown out of an early free concert beside Toronto City Hall) and Salmon Rushdie are good examples. But what about routine censorship the press and public accept as deserved? I don't think it gets much publicity or generates many sales.

Government vs. corporate and private censorship:
Anyone - I don't know all that much about the McCarthy era in US history. Wasn't it private companies' actions that hurt various artists more than the government's investigations? As far as I know, the government never moved to actively censor the artists. Am I wrong?

Minorities:
Tina - If homosexuals gain equal rights it's mostly because the politically active majority think they ought to have (or don't object if they have) these rights. Laws can give you *some* protection, but they can't grant you acceptance into a community. Your contributions and your lengthy *recognized* presence grant you acceptance. If you already have that acceptance, then censorship laws AREN'T going to significantly hurt you. You may even be granted protection through anti-descrimination laws.

The idiot principal who turned down a free Indigo Girls concert (what was his name, Goliath - the biggest Philistine of them all?) isn't the federal or state government. They're not as dumb, or as easily swayed by 30 parents as he is. Amazing his critical thinking didn't tell him the students might turn destructive over the issue -- I wonder if he still drives his car to school?

Chet - I don't understand the your reference to Havel as an inspiration to the choir.

Almost time for "Objectionable Material, Part 3"?

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Bert
Date: 07 May 98 - 10:33 AM

Chet,

I love your statement...

I think if communities would stand together for something positive, such as opposing violence and supporting fairness, the results could be as dramatic as the negative ones we see every day.

We are trying very hard to create a community down our street. It's slow work but several of our neighbors now feel free enough to stop and chat. Bert.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Sandy
Date: 07 May 98 - 11:40 AM

Well, it's all getting rather boring. The one most important point to make that puts all of this into context is that, after all the rantings, it's all been totaly inconsequential. The world is still the same.

Great eh? So I've had enough of this and I'm going to carry on making music.

Love and peace man!

Sandy

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 07 May 98 - 12:45 PM

So this thread is itself now...objectionable material? ;-)

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Pete M
Date: 07 May 98 - 04:56 PM

I thought I'd give this thread a rest, but as Dick said elsewhere habits die hard. Steve, I cannot see how anyones' cop or otherwise, conscience would tell them to execute or frame felons. I can quite understand them wanting to in some circumstances, but I would hope that it was their *conscience* not fear of any legal sanction, which *stopped* them.

Sandy, I hope you were joking? No, as as result of this thread the world *has* changed. Some people, myself included, have been exposed to arguments they would not have thought of both in defence and against their own position. And - who knows - perhaps enough people have had their consciences pricked to do something political and ethical about the plight of Chets' detainees or their equivalent in other countries.

Pete M

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 07 May 98 - 05:36 PM

Steve T., There is an old expression from the mysterious South, which is "preaching to the choir". The image is that of a preacher who may not sway the congregation, but he can always turn around (in Protestant churches) and go through the motions of influencing those who already agree with what he is saying. The wisdom and eloquence of Havel's speeches may be lost on those whom he would most like to influence, but it still inspires people of good will who listen to him.

Appreciate your thoughts, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 08 May 98 - 05:28 PM

Pete, I'm sending you a message with an example.

I don't think it's easy to change a person's basic moral sense. Often this is in conflict with the law. Do we want police who act morally OR police who enforce the law. I think it's wrong for people to harass cops because they've obeyed the law. Harass their bosses instead, if you like. Or harass the lawmakers. That's all.

Chet, I'm currious: are all the gangs into drug-running, or are some mostly concerned with protecting their members?

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 08 May 98 - 08:34 PM

Steve, Almost all the gangs are into selling drugs, whether wholesale or retail depends upon the stature or power base of the gang. National gangs like the California-based bloods and crips and the Folks in Chicago sell wholesale. Big, big money. For the little gangs selling retail on the corner it is still by far the most profitable thing they can do to support themselves. Alas, the profits are not spent as you might think on subsistence for starving families (at least not much of it) but rather for succeedingly expensive cars and clothes and jewelry. Oddly, even in the juvenile prison where I work the kids organize themselves into gangs based on the town/community from which they come. In this case there is no territory to defend and it is based upon having a group of people who fight for each other. I often ask them "what does the winner get?" when they have a fight, and they always reply "respect". This is one of the basic tenets of gangsta culture; There is no difference between the definitions of respect and fear. They think that if someone is afraid of them, which is of course easy to attain, that this situation is equal to respect. I try to explain the real meaning of respect and I rarely get the idea across.

Chet.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Dan Mulligan
Date: 09 May 98 - 04:55 PM

A principle tennet the the United States is founded on is that people have the right to be "offensive." The bill of rights is intended to protect the rights of the minority, not the rights of the majority, because without it Democracy degenerates into what was described in "The Mouse That Roared"as "the majority forcing it's will upon the minority."
There are those that argue that freedom of speech is inteded to protect "political speech," well in a Democracy ALL speech is "political," especially if politicians are talking about it. And the fact that "Cop Killer" is considered "objectionable" is exactly why it deserves to be protected. I would rather see the government ban the singing of "Gilligan's Island" than "Cop Killer."
Dan

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 May 98 - 06:24 PM

Again, "Amazing Grace" lyric works real well sung to the tune of the "Gilligan's Island" theme !

Art

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 10 May 98 - 05:32 AM

I like to sing Gilligan's Island lyrics to the Brady Bunch theme. It usually puts people into complete shock for about 10 seconds before the groaning starts big time :-) Of course, the true philistines never notice anything amiss.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: leprechaun
Date: 10 May 98 - 04:14 PM

What was the name of the dog on "The Brady Bunch?"

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Dan Mulligan
Date: 10 May 98 - 04:37 PM

Was it Butch?

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: rosebrook
Date: 10 May 98 - 05:13 PM

As embarassing as this is, I do know the answer to this Brady Bunch trivia question, aptly posted in the objectionable material thread : ) It's Tiger. What's my prize?

Rosebrook

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: Jenny
Date: 10 May 98 - 06:17 PM

I've been following this thread for some time and have done some thinking on the subject of objectionable material and censorship. My parents never censored what I read, watched or, listened to. I believe the "off" button is attached for a reason. And I find it extremely irritating when something is edited for children, after 9 pm. However, there is a limit, and I think Cop Killer exceeded the limit. The use of the term "hate crime" in these threads is interesting. As a jew, I'm accustomed to the term, but have always thought of it as applying to minorities or religion. Cop Killer literally spews hate. In my family, growing up, there were two words we were never allowed to use: "hate" and "liar." I thought it was pretty dumb, then, now I understand. This is a thread that could go on for eons; probably until someone rationalizes the situation and all of us tired 'Cats succumb and say "Oh, yeah."

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: leprechaun
Date: 10 May 98 - 08:28 PM

Sorry Rosebrook, no cupie doll. The correct answer is...

Florence Henderson

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: steve t
Date: 11 May 98 - 01:25 AM

Florence Henderson played the mom. Everyone except the maid, Alice -- Ann Davis, was chosen partly for their good looks. Even if you meant that Alice was the dog, you really don't know who your audience is -- folkies generally look down on people who call less advantaged people dogs.

Subject: RE: Objectionable Material - The sequel
From: chet w
Date: 11 May 98 - 05:03 PM

Starting the Objectionable Sequel II if anyone's interested.

Chet W.