Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Gore's OTHER lapse in judgment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:24 AM
Original message
Al Gore's OTHER lapse in judgment
He should not have aided and abetted his wife's absurd and constitutionally dubious attempt to get the federal government to censor rock music. Here's a little refresher about Tipper and the PMRC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC

The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was a American committee formed in 1985 by four women: Tipper Gore, wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore; Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; Pam Howar, wife of Washington realtor Raymond Howar; and Sally Nevius, wife of Washington City Council Chairman John Nevius. They were known as the "Washington wives" — a reference to their husbands' connections with the federal government. The Center eventually grew to include 22 directors.

The PMRC claimed that popular music, and especially rock and heavy metal music, was partially responsible for the contemporary increase in rape, teenage pregnancy, and teen suicide. The group's mission was "to educate and inform parents" about "the growing trend in music towards lyrics that are sexually explicit, excessively violent, or glorify the use of drugs and alcohol," and to seek the censorship and rating of music.

Gore watched other rock music videos and concluded: "The images frightened my children, they frightened me! The graphic sex and the violence were too much for us to handle." Susan Baker became alarmed after hearing her seven-year-old daughter singing along with Madonna songs that Baker considered "suggestive." Gore and Baker, along with Howard and Nevius, formed the PMRC in May 1985.
...
The PMRC claimed that the change in rock music was attributable to the decay of the nuclear family in America. Gore asserted that families are "haven(s) of moral stability" which protect children from outside influence, and without the family structure rock music was "infecting the youth of the world with messages they cannot handle."
...
In August 1985, 19 record companies agreed to put "Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics" labels on albums to warn of explicit lyrical content. However, before the labels could be put into place, the Senate agreed to hold a hearing on so-called "porn rock". This began on 19 September 1985, when representatives from the PMRC, three musicians, and Senators Paula Hawkins and Al Gore testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on "the subject of the content of certain sound recordings and suggestions that recording packages be labeled to provide a warning to prospective purchasers of sexually explicit or other potentially offensive content."
...
Many record stores refused to sell albums containing the label (most notably Wal-Mart), and others limited the sale of those albums to minors. The label became known as the "Tipper sticker". Some politicians attempted to criminalize the sale of explicit records to minors, while others attempted to completely ban such records.

That's right, Al thought these killjoys are better suited to determine what kind of music you should be allowed to listen to you are:


Al Gore's support for this kind of hysterical paternalism causes me to seriously question his judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. I have no problems with labels or movie ratings. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. okay, how about labelling books?
websites?

What makes the federal government so qualified to determine what cultural content is "appropriate" for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Does the Federal Government label movies? Get your facts straight.
I guess then they ought to get rid of the "children's section" of the local library or bookstore, right? Websites — there is blocking software that parents can use, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:39 AM
Original message
the labelling was a reaction to Senate hearing
These paternalists used their connections to the government to intimidate the recording industry into "voluntarily" using the labels in order to avoid outright government-mandated censorship. I wish the industry would've had the guts to fight harder against this kind of state paternalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
13. But does the government censor? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. The threat of government censorship creates a chilling effect.
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 10:00 AM by northernsoul
I'm not contending that we have actual, de jure government censorship of art. I'm contending that Al Gore lent his political power to an over-reaching state paternalism that runs contrary to my beliefs.

<edited for spelling error>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. "seek the censorship and rating of music."
I see where this talks about rating the music, but where does the censorship come in?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. That is the censorship from some points of view
Because parents won't let their kids own CDs with the Sticker of Evil on them.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. It comes when a CD that gets an "evil" label becomes impossible to find
because every record store is too chicken to carry them, even when they theoretically have the legal right to do so.

I don't know if it's been tried with records, but with porn, the prudes would hire 17 yos that look older, give them fake documents, and send them to buy porn, so the porn store could be pro(per?)secuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #16
42. I've never seen a CD store
that didn't carry CD's with a parental guidance label.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #42
52. Nice to know that -- it means the prudes failed. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
64. It's people slapping a label on something...
labelling it, in effect, immoral and inappropriate.

Kind of like a big scarlet letter "A."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. That was over 20 years ago. And, I have no problem at all with ratings.
I refused to buy ANY CD for my children or another's children with that explicit warning label on it. I am grateful for that label because I can't stomach the music my kids like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. well,
I can tell you from anecdotal experience that this kind of nannyism alienated a lot of people who came of age in the 80's from the Democrats. Not everybody wants their musical choices to be limited to Barbara Streisand and Pat Boone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. and not everyone wants their children listening to profanity
Adults are one thing, but those labels were intended to inform consumers about the type of profanities included in a given CD. I have no problem with them at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. how much information does this actually give you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. Explicit content says it all for me.
I don't let my kids listen to misogynistic stuff that seems to be pretty popular these days with certain groups. Eminem comes to mind.

And, as someone who is reasonably well informed, I would look into the content of a CD that had that sticker pasted on it prior to purchasing it.

The profanity part is actually the least of my worries, frankly, although I would prefer that my 10yo not get an earful of it. The misogynistic stuff bothers me a great deal more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
73. Same here. AS a cheer coach I can have zero suggestive or profane lyrics and that
little phrase saves me from wasting my time on a song that I can't use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
36. Class of '87.
Yeah, I whined about the "music censors" in Washington when I heard what little I did about the issue. But I was 17, I wasn't listening to the recordings they were concerned about, and I think today that their concern was warranted.

We don't allow our children unfettered access to violence or high-test sex at the movies, and I see no reason why they should be allowed unfettered access to violence/sex in the music they listen to as young minors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. I remember when they brought in Frank Zappa to testify
I've never cared for Tipper since then. And the other lapse in judgement would have to be Lieberman, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
83. He'd be the first to acknowledge that "Teen Advisories" SELL music.
The cigarette companies' internal memos reflected the same when they predicted a boost in sales to rebellious teens when the warning label was put on the side of the pack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
93. Here he is on YouTube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5b8FxF-bXw

Dee Snyder and John Denver were also great, but I don't think they're on YouTube.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
9. To bring up something from 20 years ago...
Sounds pretty desperate to me. Is your contention that Gore would work to censor music, if he were elected in 08?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. no, my contention is that the PMRC's efforts
to use the federal government to control cultural content implicates serious constitutional issues that Al Gore, as a U.S. Senator should've taken into consideration rather than throwing his power behind these kinds of proto-censorious efforts. This incident, nameing Lieberman as his VP, and caving into the DLC consultants cause me to question whether he has the judgment or the backbone to stand up for himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
11. Ratings are a tool for parents in any form of media. We use it for
our family children. I thank Tipper for giving us those ratings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Yeah. More information for the consumer is a good thing.
I loudly decried Tipper's little decency crusade at the time, but the result was a useful ratings system. I may have been completely wrong about her motives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. What information does the Tipper Sticker actually give you?


Honestly, when it comes to describing cultural content, this doesn't tell us a whole lot. What do they mean by 'explicit'? Who decided and on what basis? I find Toby Keith's musical felatio of George Bush to be a whole lot more offensive than anything Twisted Sister ever recorded, but one artist's album gets the sticker and the other's doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #25
40. Nothing useful to me.
I don't care about f-bombs, and the sticker won't tell me about sexism or racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. so what's the point?
I think doing a quick google search can tell you a lot more about the content of an album than any sticker ever can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. So a parent out shopping with a child can read the label...
...and make a quick, mildly informed decision--just as with the TV-14 tags at the start of TV shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #43
51. Do you realize that their request for a voluntary ratings system predates the commercial internet?
By over ten years?

The Parents Music Resource Center was founded in 1984, the Senate hearing was in 1985 and the industry adopted the labeling system in November 1985.

The internet went commercial in 1995 (thanks, in a very large part, to Al Gore). (And google began as a research project at Stanford in 1996.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. do you agree that the stickers are now essentially useless?
They impart no substantive information about cultural content, and thanks the internet (and agreedly, by extension, to Mr. Gore), those consumers who want information can make perfectly well-informed decisions all by themselves without government-induced industry paternalism. Why keep them around now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
85. "Why keep them around now?"
We keep these "useless" stickers around for those parents whose kids ask, "Can we buy this, huh?" when they're shopping at Target (or wherever).

The internet is not immediately available for on-the-spot information needs. I'm pretty confident in asserting that many music purchases are impulse buys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
81. As a parent, I too appreciate the ratings
on music, movies and video games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nomad559 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
12. Al Gore was also
Pro life some years ago.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
14. I love the smell of grasping at straws in the morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. I thought is was worth talking about
Will, I sincerely believe that the PMRC's efforts to use the federal government to control cultural content implicated serious constitutional issues. Al Gore's support for these efforts: a) alienated a lot of music fans who grew up in the 80's; and, b) taken alongside his naming Lieberman as a VP in 2000, cause me to question his judgment / leadership. If he's the nominee, I'll vote for the guy in '08. I think he did a lot of good with his movie. I just also happen to think that he's taken some mis-steps that need to be discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. It was worth talking about... in 1988.
I was a headbanger when the PMRC controversy was going on. I thought it was a silly bunch of noise then and it's less than a diversion now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. agreed that it's not a burning issue now
I think it is a relevant part of Al Gore's political record, however. I'm a little taken aback by all of the substantive enthusiasm for the PMRC's efforts here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #28
59. Yep, that "diversity of opinion" thing we got at DU is a real pain in the caboose
The other day my daughter was griping about why some movie she wanted to see was R-rated. Then she suddenly stopped griping and said "Oh wait, I'm 17. I guess I can go see it."

I'm glad she has the maturity of judgment to like or dislike things, including judgments she makes based on what she finds offensive. She learned this because I as a parent spent time teaching her appropriate limits. The warning labels on albums don't solve any problem at all. But as a parent I see them as a tool to help reinforce her need to understand what are appropriate limits, what's acceptable speech vs. what's intolerable. These labels aren't censorship, but rather a sign of the exact opposite being true. Parents feel like we need these tools because there is not censorship in music.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. You can bet the GOP noise machine will talk about ANYTHING from 1988
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 10:15 AM by havocmom
or well before, if it helps them batter someone. So we might do well to consider the past along with the present when looking for candidates.

Kerry - Vietnam - long time ago and they up and flat out lied about his service record.

Past is something to consider if there are any political liabilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I'm having a hard time picturing the GOP as
champions of free expression. Then again, locial consistency isn't their calling card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. They play what ever song will appease a crowd
and we all know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
79. Why? You decide if you want to buy the album. The feds don't "control" it.
"Will, I sincerely believe that the PMRC's efforts to use the federal government to control cultural content implicated serious constitutional issues."

It's a sticker. Like the "R" on the back of a violent movie. I don't see it as some gross affront to our freedoms, because in the end, the parents make the decision, not the government.

"Explicit content" tells me there's either profanity or some kind of offensive homophobic, racist, sexist or otherwise prejudiced lyrics. That's all any parent would need to know, I think.

My parents didn't give a damn when I wanted a Rage Against the Machine album with the sticker on it. They knew me well enough to know I was mature enough at 15 to handle it. I guess you see the "R" rating as a scarlet letter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
50. no shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
18. The Stickers are Innocuous
I don't get worked up about most lyrics or videos, but I understand parents who do. It's human nature to take responsibility for what your children are exposed to, and it's difficult to know when to ease up. Consider the fact that recordings have gotten much MORE explicit in the last couple of decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
20. he's not the Second Coming
Google his speeches to AIPAC. The slobbering and pandering is astonishing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. And there was that choice of running mate...
I love the man, and am all for him... as a cabinet member in the upcoming DEM Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
22. i will take all of Al's lapses over little lord pissy pants criminal activities any day!!
what is the point of this??

seriously..i think some are scared shitless of Al..and his running..

and they should be!!

RUN AL RUN!!

at least Al didn't vote for or support this illegal war of lies..now that is a real life and death lapse!!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Agreed
Look, if he's our guy in 2008, I'm going to vote for him. I think he's done an awful lot fo good in the past few years. However, I don't think he (or any other candidate) should be unqueestioningly annointed.

Does the fact that he's light years better than George W. Bush mean that we can't discuss his record?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. i'll discuss AL'S record..Al fought for the retraining of all flight crew
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 10:28 AM by flyarm
for terrorism prior to the millineum..and new procedures were put into effect ..of which worked and got several terrorists stopped during the millennium period..all of which....now read this slowly..all of which were ignored or coincidently ( yeah right) FAILED MISERABLY ON 9/11..

I THINK I WILL TAKE 3000 LAPSES BY AL OVER THE MISERABLE "LAPSES ( IE: LIES AND FAILURES ) OF THE REPUBLICANS OR LITTLE LORD PISSY PANTS..ANY DAY!!

yes lets discuss Al v little lord pissy pants...

little lord pissy pants = 3000 dead americans because he ignored warnings..never told the transportation secretary of the warnings of 9/11..no flight crew were warned of the warnings of 9/11...

or Al wanting warnings on music...

gee tough one to decide on!!


little lord pissy pants lies us into a war ..3,500 dead soldiers..between 650,000 -950,000 dead iraqi's based on lies and deciet..

Or Al wanting warnings on music..........

another tough one to decide!!

Al says war is unjust prior to war started and very verbal about it...but wanted warnings on music..

and little lord pissy pants starting a war based on nothing but fucked up disgusting lies to the american people..blatant lies...

gee tough choice...

lapses or out right lies and dead people...

this is beyond silly ..it is pathetic!!

fly

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
86. That's an impressive straw man you have there
I really appreciate the use of caps. It makes it seem like, you know, you're REALLY serious and all.

Of course, your argument is essentially meaningless, because the OP never made any comparison between G-Dubs and Gore. Nothing unusual here really. You can find some nice straw men on pretty much any thread about a democratic political figure that goes over 50 posts.

Save some bandwidth, don't post strawman arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
24. why is labelling/rating of music albums a bad thing again...?
because i can't imagine why anyone would think that it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Who decides and on what basis?
Cultural standards are far too subjective for any kind of labelling to be accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
90. they do it with movies-and that seems to work well enough for everyone.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quispquake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. Who does the rating???
The main question is who does the rating...they wanted a rating for OCCULT (anything against their version of Christianity would probably fit into this). Then, the big chain sellers wouldn't sell any stickered records...this means the artist would have to censor themselves, or miss being sold by the big stores...

The whole PMRC was created by the Christian right ...Tipper & Jello Biafra were on Oprah back in '88 where she said it didn't have anything to do with the Christian right...Jello pulled out a newspaper article right on Oprah and nailed Tipper good (check out the video here: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=7722).

I like Gore nowadays...I will happily vote for him, but as a music fan/freedom of speech advocate, Tipper's role in the PMRC is something that has not let me support him as much as I want to (as I said, he's saying & doing the right stuff nowadays, but it's like not mentioning Bush's past as an alcoholic...what has happened before can indeed rear it's ugly head again).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
91. they rate movies- and that seems to work.
stores can choose not to carry an album, even if it doesn't have stickers- and stores also have a right to stock the type of merchandise that they feels most appeals to their customers tastes.
btw- big chain stores don't carry anywhere NEAR every album produced anyway- labelled or not- does EVERY artist have a "right" to have their album on a particular stores shelves? (no, they don't)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
34. When my son starts buying music, I'll want to know what he's listening to.
I appreciate a warning about lurid or potentially offensive content. I see no censorship in providing information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #34
57. I used to say stuff like that when my daughter was young. Now that she's 17...
I honestly don't want to know what she's listening to. At least she's past that J-Pop phase--that stuff is annoying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. I think there's plenty of music
that nobody OVER the age of eighteen should be allowed to listen to, including J-pop. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
39. Someday when the world is at peace, the environment is healed, & universal healthcare has arrived
I will be able to worry again about bullshit like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
41. Giving people information is not censorship.
Sorry, but letting people know before they buy something that it has obscene content is giving people choice and more information. That isn't censorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
45. Well Now
Labeling and censoring are not the same thing. Parents have a right to a guide and I don't know any place that doesn't carry the adult stuff.

That said, yes, I had a real problem with Tipper about this because of the judgments about it. The blaming music for violence and rape and the decay of the family is a crock of Far Right-Wing CRAP. I really hated that actually.

Lee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
46. This is why...
...I've never been a fan of Tipper. Kids are likely to have different musical tastes than their parents - and that's okay. That's part of establishing one's own identity. I'm amazed at those who have said "I was opposed to this blatant censorship at the time, when I was young, but now I'm thankful for it." Well, I was opposed to it as a kid, and I'm still opposed - and I don't even like the music that it affects. What happens to people when they grow up and become parents themselves? Do they take on a whole different persona? Do they forget what it was like to be kids? Honestly, those who are so worried that their "impressionable" kiddies might be irrevocably warped by some lyrics in a song, might do better to listen to the music at least one time themselves (I'm not asking anyone to force themselves to listen to stuff they hate - but be aware of what it is), and then casually discuss it with their kids. Something like "It's great to enjoy what you enjoy, but you know of course that the artist doesn't mean this theme literally. It's just entertainment." How many of us enjoy action-adventure movies, for instance, but would never dream of going out and duplicating those scenes? It's okay to get some vicarious enjoyment out of the "forbidden," in a safe scenario. It's called a pressure-release valve, and gods know we need it in today's world. Just one of my minor little hot-buttons.

Anyway, I always saw this as Tipper's misguided crusade, not Al's. To be fair, I don't think she'd try to pull something like that again, and he's engaged in much more important issues these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. How is this CENSORSHIP let alone "blatant censorship"?
And you say parents should "be aware of what it is" — what better way to compel them to do this than label the contents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. It's somebody's OPINION that there's something questionable in the contents...
...someone who can't possibly know what might or might not disturb an individual kid. It's the parent's responsibility to know their own child well enough to address what might or might not affect them negatively - not a blanket statement by the government saying "stuff with this label is 'bad' and you shouldn't even allow it in the house, and stuff without it is 'good' and you don't have to pay attention to it." I dare say more kids were traumatized by watching "Bambi" or "Old Yeller" than by hearing a few f-words in a rap song.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Labeling is NOT censorship. Labeling is not government censorship. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #46
58. censorship is Little lord pissy pants..that is censorship..never before in my 55 yrs
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 11:30 AM by flyarm
have i seen more censorship than that has been done to this nation as under GW*...now there is where you CAN REALLY START WITH CENSORSHIP!!

THIS IS BOGUS!!

i raised my son during his teenage years during the clinton administration..and i was damn glad to know what music was out of bounds ..since at that time..i couldn't really hear the words my son could hear!!

i also remember driving my son to school and a certain dj was on the radio one morning talking about biting off a womans nipple while having sex..well i didn't understand what this dj was saying...i was busy driving..but my son sure got it..he told me what was said..and i was horrified...

but i degress...i was also a flight crew that was sent back to retraining because Al Gore fought for us to go back and get additional training for terrorism..prior to the millenium..

i do not know what those words did by the dj...or if those words transpired into anyone's deaths..i just don't know...


.but i know damn well what the lack of words and warnings and the utter failure either deliberate ..or by sheer consequence of a complete systemwide failure...of security... on 9/11 by ..this administration...resulted in close to 3000 deaths...

i know the words of lies and deciet by this administration.. put us into a war of lies of which now close to 1 million
human
beings are dead..

I know for sure..i am not perfect..

and i know for sure Gore is not perfect..and i have yet to meet any human in my 55 years that is perfect..

that creature doesn't exist..

i know what i thought 5 years ago..has changed or been modified..and i have no problem admitting that..nor does Gore..

any competant person will change their views and ideas as they grow ..

except little lord pissy pants as he is so proud to point out!

i want someone who grows ..in intelligence and thought..

we all make lapses..we all make fucking mistakes..if we didn't there would not be erasers on pencils!

i am proud of some of my mistakesa..AS THEY HAVE MADE ME A BETTER PERSON!!

THEY HAVE MADE ME A SMARTER PERSON!

it is those who refuse to admit their mistakes that frighten me..it is those who do not look BACK AT THEIR LIFE AND SEE WHERE THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER..THAT FRIGHTEN ME..

IT IS THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN BY THEIR MISTAKES AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE GOOD..THAT FRIGHTEN ME!



again i will say this is silly..

i hope to god Gore has made mistakes or changed his views and has grown..as i hope all adults do...

it is childish to admit you never made mistakes..it is childish to say you didn't or won't change your views..it is childish to even play games to critisize anyones life 20 years hence who hasn't grown and changed or reviewed what they did in their younger years..and find what worked and what didn't.. and correct what didn't work ..and be proud of what did!

we all have records..we have records of how we did our job..how we treated our spouses, how we treated and raised our children..

god help all of us if each and everything we have done is examined, as if it was life or death..some things are life and death..but many are not..

start looking at the life and death things, not the utter bullshit..

unless we ourselves are willing to put our each and every record on stage..and disect it..we can not be adult and expect the same from anyone who runs for our offices..we all need to grow up and realize people change..people grow..people all make mistakes..and most do good..for good reasons..at that time...if we do not grow up ourselves, we will have another little lord pissy pants..and we can kiss this republic off..

look at the real stuff not this petty bullshit!!

fly




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Oh, I agree with you, there's no comparison to *....
...the censoring of climate scientists, the flat-out lying us into a war, the massive ongoing drive to stifle those who speak the truth, isn't even in the same league as slapping a few labels onto a music CD. I also agree that the only shame in making mistakes, is not having learned from them. It's by no means my intent to toss poison darts at Al Gore - he's one of the very few people in this world whom I truly admire. It's just that the music-labelling issue gets my hackles up just a little, which is the only reason I replied to this thread. But in the greater scheme of things, you're absolutely right, it's a non-issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
53. They should put warning labels on that censored shit.
I accidently bought an album and only found out later the cuss words were edited out.

They should have enormous labels on them saying "WARNING: THIS ALBUM IS FOR VICTORIAN ERA PRUDES WITH NO SENSE OF ARTISTIC INTEGRITY AND PROBABLY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE LISTENING TO MUSIC ANYWAY, BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO BUSY BURNING BOOKS AND HANDLING RATTLE SNAKES."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
55. That's Not Such A Big Deal. Nothing Wrong With Putting Warning Labels On Them.
In fact, it's probably the responsible thing to do.

Censoring is a different story. But just putting ratings and warnings on them? Pretty good idea actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
56. let us know when you find the worlds 1ST PERFECT candidate
Meanwhile us in the real world will have to pick and choose from REAL PEOPLE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #56
61. Can these real people be critically evaluated?
Not to mention, as of this moment, Mr. Gore is not a candidate for any office. He is a public figure whom I generally respect, but has also taken some positions that I disagree with. Is there an unwritten DU rule that he can be treated with nothing other than slavish obsequiance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
62. Yep. damn him for not keeping the little woman in line!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. That's not what I said
He aided the PMRC's efforts with his Senate testimony. I don't believe that it is the business of the U.S. Senate to determine what cultural content is appropriate or inappropriate for private consumption, therefore I disagree with his actions on this issue. I find Tipper Gore's involvement in this effort to be sactimonious and puritanical. None of that implies that my criticism of Gore is based on some failure to "control" his wife, and I object to any assertion to that effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. well, that's how it came off to me
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. I apologize for not articulating myself better
My concern in this issue is with freedom of expression, not gender, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to make that clearer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
97. no need to apologize
sorry for not totally understanding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
68. With Or Without Tipper...
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 12:34 PM by otohara
this would have happened.

I worked as marketing director for large retail chain back then and after it was enacted, clerks & managers of the stores no longer had angry parents/grandparents yelling at them when returning music with offensive lyrics. People of the parental type who buy music expect the kids in the stores to know every song, by every artist and what the lyrics are.

"Some politicians" failed in their attempts to criminalize and ban such records, didn't they?

Now Al Gore is bringing artists together for "Live Earth" - Even those naughty Red Hot Chili Pepper guys. Pretty sure their CD's have those Tipper Stickers on them and they aren't holding on to a 20 year grudge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
69. The PMRC was a joke
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 01:15 PM by enigmatic
And was known as a joke as soon it was organized. When Tipper Gore went on the media rounds to defend the org and it's aims, one of her favorite lyrics that she liked to quote to "show" how the PMRC was needed was Sheena Easton's "Sugar Walls", which even by 1980's standards was no more explicit than Bruce Springsteen's "Strap your hands across my engines" line in Born To Run. Peter Buck of R.E.M. said in interviews at that time that it actually brought him and bands like Twisted Sister (another PMRC target, if you can believe that) together that really didn't like each other because of the whole ridiculousness of the situation.

When magazines like Rolling Stone, Creem, and others wrote articles showing how idiotic the PMRC's stance was, Tipper tried to show her cred by pointing out how "hip" she was by saying what a big Grateful Dead fan she was. Jerry Garcia laughed at this as well as others, who pointed out that The Dead had many, many songs directly or indirectly talking about drug use, and of course Dead shows were hardly bastions of sobriety and anti-drug use.

The final nail in the coffin for them was Frank Zappa's testimony on Capital Hill; after that smack-down, the PMRC (mostly) faded from view as anything to be taken seriously.

Of course, Wal-Mart used the stickers to edit (and refuse to sell) anything they deemed objectionable; the PMRC gave them that in to censor based not on a strict definition of "explicit content", but more often than not, their own bigotry.

There were alot of people (young and old) during that time that swore that they would never vote for Al Gore for President because of his tact approval of the PMRC, and I was one of them; it took many years (and both Tipper and Al's mellowing)to change my mind.

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he decided to run in 2008, but any whitewashing of the PMRC as anything other than at best, misguided is revisionist history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. I forgot about the whole Grateful Dead angle
I think something that really annoyed me at the time was the generational hypocrisy involved: Baby-boomers who promote drug use are OK, younger people who say "we're not gonna take it" are a threat to American civilization. Which brings to light the problem with any effort to regulate subjective cultural content: who gets to judge and what standards will apply?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
70. This is so 20 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
72. A lot of DUers rail against the misogynistic content of rap, etc.
But then turn around and say they don't want their musical choices limited to Streisand and Pat Boone (a gross overstatement if ever there was one!).

Nobody ever advocated limiting choice to Streisand and Pat Boone. Or even Debby Boone! Tipper didn't, and Al didn't.

Parents NEED to know what kind of stuff their kids are listening to. We put ratings on movies for the same reason; theaters still run R-rated movies.

To call this Mr. Gore's "other lapse in judgment" is at BEST a huge stretch; it rather reminds me of the swift-boaters.....

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
I refuse to let my kids listen to music that is misogynistic. They are fine with that once they see what the problem is.

Sometimes the lyrics get lost in the 'music' so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
74. This is part of the past he is talking about when he refers to this system as toxic
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 01:34 PM by RestoreGore
At least, that is what I believe anyway. I think he had plans to run in 1988 when this was going on and believed that supporting it would make him look more "conservative" and thus bring him more votes. He was in a different time and place then, and this really is a clear illustration of what he is talking about now regarding politics and what it does to people. I know that isn't much of an explanation to some and looking back at it I did not agree with his wife either, but at least Mr. Gore is a man who has learned from the past.

So I sure hope all of those who are thrashing him here about this are going to support Live Earth now to support this planet and the artists performing. I also believe people are only dragging this stuff out now as it gets closer to their primaries because they have some idea he is going to run and they want to hit the runway running with the attacks. Which again proves his point. I honestly hope he continues doing what he is doing because it is so much more important now. And besides, who needs to be spending every day doing this again when we need to be thinking of the future? Sure, at the time it caused controversy and many did not agree with it, but I would say he has now done more than enough as a man who has seen what it is about to make amends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
76. I'm against making candidates responsible for what their spouses do
They are separate individuals after all. It's too much like the right wing idea a man should control his wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #76
89. great responce
Also,Her stance makes it hard for the riechwingers to attack her on 'family values'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
77. I haven't seen you respond to those...
who called you out on your claim that labeling is the same thing as censoring. I too am curious as to how you can compare the two and perhaps you can explain it to us better.

I was parenting 3 teen-aged sons at the time this occurred and was grateful to finally have some kind of information about the music they bought. I'm not prudish by any means, but I certainly didn't want my sons being influenced by "cultural" music that demeaned women all of the time. Let me think back to some of the music that blared from their rooms before I could get control of the situation...women were "motherfucking ho's," women can "suck my dick," and of course the latest utterance plastered all over the news was women are "nappy-headed ho's."

Gee, I wonder what "paternalistic" goofball came up with movie ratings as well. Are you saying my teen-aged sons should have had the right to go and see "Debbie Does Dallas" or "Deep Throat" and parental guidance be damned because it's a "cultural" thang? Please, give me a freakin' break. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. because that's not my claim
All I said was that the Gores participated in an attempt to use the federal government to censor music, which they had to back away from after being widely lambasted. The resulting "voluntary" labelling was a result of a chilling effect created by this effort. If I've gotten my facts wrong, please let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lies and propaganda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
78. yeah but that was the freaking eighties!!!
everyone was retarded, I highly doubt she would do anything like taht now..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
82. This is the definition of petty...
both the PMRC and the rehashing of it here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
84. This is nothing more than excavation of ancient history to kvetch.
Gore has evolved; look into it.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
87. Labels are NOT censorship, and to claim they are is not only specious reasoning; it is lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. that's debatable, and I object to the accusation that I am a liar
1) The essence of my post is that Al Gore participated in an attempt to use the power of the federal government to control the content of cultural and artistic expression. As a result of this attempt, the music industry "voluntarily" put their meaningless stickers on various albums which offended the PMRC's selective sensibilities. Personally, I do not believe that this is "censorship" in any constitutional sense, I but do find it insulting and paternalistic.

2) Whether or not the labelling constitutes "corporate censorhip" is open to debate. Reasonable people can disagree on this
Corporate censorship in the music industry involves the censorship of musicians' artistic works by the refusal to market or to distribute them. One example given by Jay is that of Ice T having to censor the lyrics of "Cop Killer" as a result of pressure being applied to Time Warner by William Bennett and various religious and advocacy groups.<1>

Halleck<7> opines that describing the corporate censorship of independent artists, which she notes is often less overt in form, as self-censorship "smacks of blaming the victim". She describes such self-censorship as being simply a survival strategem, the tailoring of an artist's choices to what is acceptable to those in power, based upon widespread knowledge of the acceptable themes and formats at instutitions such as (her examples) the Public Broadcasting System, the Whitney Biennial, the Museum of Modern Art, the Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibits gallery, or the Boston Institute of Contemporary Art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

3) My definition of "lying" is the knowing and intentional advancement of a proposition that is factually false. Although this particular topic is largely peripheral in view of current event, I take the charge that I am lying very seriously. Please provide your basis for asserting that I am lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #87
96. I disagree.
I think slapping a label on somebody else's stuff because you find it inappropriate is pretty much like this:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matsubara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
92. I have *NO* problem with labeling CDs with explicit lyrics and not selling them to kids.
How is that a lapse in judgment?

I don't support censorship, but I'm glad there's a label to help know what my kid's trying to buy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
94. As a musician I see warning labels as free promotion
They do nothing to hurt sales and no self respecting music fan would shop at a place like Wal Mart that might not stock music with explicit lyrics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StudentsMustUniteNow Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
95. Good point. Tipper Gore is not one of us
Neither is Al "NAFTA" Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. We're only us
because of Al Internet Gore and he was slandered by the MCM for that very reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
98. That entry needs some editing by someone who understands what censorship means
Unless Al Gore was one of the "politicians (who) attempted to criminalize the sale of explicit records to minors" or "completely ban such records" then what he and Tipper advocated was not censorship. It isn't censorship just because Walmart refused to sell the records.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC