Objectionable Material - The sequel

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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