You Can't Say That! Stop It! Stop It!

[jmc]

Apparently, the original ending of AMERICAN HISTORY X has Edward Norton shaving his head again, inferring that he will rejoin the skinheads and seek revenge.  What I liked about the film is that it seemed more complex in its ideology than most.  I think it's one of the only movies to deal with race in a manner other than "the evil white racists picking on the innocent minorities."  Instead it shows how someone can be driven into racism, and  how those people are taken advantage of by the racist movement.    

I actually heard the comments on NPR today, and it was interesting to hear the argument of Sharpton...basically, "I don't advocate censorship, unless it's disrespectful."  Glad MGM is not backing down on this.

It sounds like the part that is the most "offensive" is about how "Rosa Parks didn't do anything but sit her black ass down..."   Though I wonder if the characters comments about OJ SImpson and Rodney King might have caused a similar uproar.

[peter johnson]

Boy oh boy, talk about a tempest in a teapot/much ado about nothing.
I heard a line on West Wing last night which I found fairly outrageous:  "Ah, the women!  Leave it to the women to find the most trivial issue of the campaign and get worked up into a frenzy about it & run with it!", this was Ron Silver making fun of Republican protestors mocking of a remark by the First Lady.
Well, it sure does apply here.  With all the real work yet to be done to advance the lot of Black America, what is being focused on here?
And why why why on Earth does anyone anywhere at any time pay any attention at all to what that slick weasel con-man Al Sharpton has to say?  I'm a bit in awe of this guy -- really not very bright, a man who has been (Tarwana Brawley) caught in lies on a national scale, never done any measurable good for anyone ever that I know of, an abject coward (Heraldo Rivera) in the face of possible physical confrontation, yet people still turn the camera on him and put a mike in front of his face.  Good lord . . .
And then there is that nice little song from Frank Zappa on the "Broadway the Hard Way" albumn to remind us that Jesse Jackson may just be -- ahem -- a tad self-serving and opportunistic.
peter johnson

[Dano]

Not saying Kweisi is a fascist, just pointing out that his anti-censorship stance had a pretty big caveat.  The implied message is that if he didn't like the context, then he'd be right up there with "Reverands" Jesse and Al.  

Kweisi can keep his brand of "genuine dignity and common sense."  Censorship is bad no matter who champions it.  Yes, even Tipper.

[Dano]

peter johnson wrote:  And why why why on Earth does anyone anywhere at any time pay any attention at all to what that slick weasel con-man Al Sharpton has to say?

*****  I have a theory on this and it relates to Bad Movies.  Obviously the reason he gets air time is because the media has figured out that he sells.  The media doesn't run ANYTHING unless it sells (that's why media coverage seems to go through fads, because it mainly responds to public taste).  So why does Al get viewers.  I believe that it has nothing to do with him having credibility.  Quite the opposite, it's because he is so silly and ridiculous right down to the hair - just like the movies reviewed on this site.  We all like cinematic abberation because it's funny and neat in a child(-like, -ish: take your pick) way.  Well others like political abberation.  That's why Reverend Al, Jesse, Pat Robertson, and other wack-jobs seem to get an inordinate amount of air time while at the same time, very few people in America could name more than a few dozen (at most) actual congressmen and senators off the top of their head.  I'll bet most people coast to coast recognize Al Sharpton more readily than their own congressman or mayor.

[Chadzilla]

Who IS the mayor of Concord, CA anyway.

I know my Senator is Tom Torkelson....I think.

Is it hot in here?

[Squishy]

DID Tipper actually champion censorship? (Careful--it's a trap.)

Could Andrew also be accused of "censorship" for booting John P--rick off the board for his racist garbage?

Well, we do agree on the "news" media: it's about as much legitimate "news" as WWE Wrestling is a "sport." Print or televised, it's largely LCD info-tainment.

[peter johnson]

My Dearest Squishy --
You did say:  "Did Tipper Gore ever advocate censorship?  Careful!  It's a trap!!".
Okay, fine.  Tipper did in fact advocate a lable that would appear on every single record of popular music in America that would break down what was or was not on that given record.  She was violently opposed to simply recording music to be played at will by those who purchased said recordings.  I dunno.  Is this "Censorship" per se?  As Frank Zappa said, when he was questioned when he was called before Congress & asked to speak:  "Is this a private concern?  If the Government is calling private producers of said music to define before said Government as to what is or is not an "objectionable" phrase, then it is no longer a "private" concern".
What is the Trap?
peter johnson

[Squishy]

The "trap" is believing it's true just because enough people claim it is, often enough (AKA 'Conventional' Wisdom AKA The Big Lie) and then repeating it without verification, making oneself look foolish.

What Tipper wanted became the advisory label that appears on records today, as a tool for parents, who, believe it or not, cannot preview and monitor and discuss every single thing their kids consume, on the spot. Is the content changed? Not a bit. It's just a warning that Eninem says things a parent might not want a ten-year-old to listen to. This is no more "censorship" than the movie ratings--in fact, even less so, now that movie ratings are (supposedly) enforced.

And as Hollywood eventually did with movie ratings, the music industry instantly used the advisory label, which it had fought, as a selling tool. The "horrors of censorship" = $$$$$.

Zappa?!? Puh-leeze. Yes, and Jerry Garcia's qualified to lecture on physical fitness.

It's Newstime!!

[jmc]

People were afraid that record stores would decide not to sell the labeled records, and that as a result, labels would decide to not release "offensive" records.  But that didn't happen, and it turned out that explicit lyrics were the key to big record sales.   As much as I hate rap "music," I think that it was a major factor in defusing the labelling controversy.

[J.R.]

True. There are people who consider a Parentel Advisory label a plus when purchasing CDs. I just find it abhorent that a self-appointed organization tells me what I find offensive. I remember being under eighteen and not being able to buy stickered albums, then getting them and finding that there really wasn't much offensive content on there.

[Squishy]

Ah, but the labels were not there to tell you what is or is not offensive; they were there to indicate that the album contained material that, based on general social norms--what else could they use?--you or your parents MIGHT find offensive. It was worth a try, I guess; the parents who wanted to use it got the opportunity. (I saw at least three instances where parents took their young children into the R-rated nastyfest "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut," only to bail out in shock during the second musical number. Whattaya gonna do?)

It's a far cry from, say, J. Edgar Hoover using the FBI to investigate "Mad" Magazine and intimidate the publisher. (Oi. Just when you think you've seen it all...)

The outcome of the "label" controversy was determined back in 1974 when Universal and Steven Spielberg tacked that "May Be Too Intense..." warning onto "Jaws," and rated a surefire "R"-grade movie a "PG." Regardless of the movie's quality, the kids swarmed in for the shocking gore--I know I did--and a lesson was learned over in marketing. (Notice how Spielberg always gets a free pass on all but his most violent movies?)

Side note: Believe it or not, the local whose "head" rolled out of the bottom of the boat in "Jaws" passed away recently, and a large chunk of his obit was devoted to the one-eyed prop he modelled.

[Dano]

DID Tipper actually champion censorship? (Careful--it's a trap.)
*****  Okay, technically no.  But she did advocate de facto censorship through labelling anything she found offensive, a very slippery slope.  And in point of fact, the music industry was probably hoping she'd succeed since there would probably be no better way to sell things to teens than to say "you shouldn't hear this."

Could Andrew also be accused of "censorship" for booting John P--rick off the board for his racist garbage?
*****  No.  This is Andrew's page.  j.p. has every right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants, but NOT wherever he wants.  He can't come into my home and spew his nonsense, and Andrew is under no obligation to let him come here to do so.  This is why firing Bill Mahr was not censorship either.  He has the right to free speech, but he doesn't have the right to his own TV show.  His station had the right to cut him off as soon as they believed that his continued presence would hurt their business (actually, they have the right to cut him off WHENEVER).  This is why the fact that big Hollywood studios won't fund movies made by the KKK isn't censorship (as the KKK has charged) either.  The KKK has the right to all the free speech in the world, but the don't have the right to other peoples' money to broadcast it.  Andrew's time, Andrew's effort, Andrew's page, Andrew's rules.

[Dano]

The "trap" is believing it's true just because enough people claim it is, often enough (AKA 'Conventional' Wisdom AKA The Big Lie)
*****  You mean like "The Evil Dead is a great movie"?
LOL

[Dano]

Ah, but the labels were not there to tell you what is or is not offensive; they were there to indicate that the album contained material that, based on general social norms--what else could they use?--you or your parents MIGHT find offensive.
*****  That's a great idea -- maybe they should do it with books too.  That way, the PTA won't even have to read Huck Finn before they ban it in favor of Judy Bloom(sigh).

[peter johnson]

My Dearset Squishy --
Huh?
You say "Frank Zappa?!?!?  Puleezze -- Why not Jerry Garcia on pysical fitness?"
or something like that.
I don't get it.
Frank Zappa is and was a genuine thinker and intellectual who had deep analytical thoughts about most aspects of world popular culture.  It is for this reason that he had his own show on the Economic Channel on cable in the '80's. It is for this reason that statues are erected to him in Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, and the former East Germany.  It is for this reason that he was lauded to the point of canonization when he first visited the newly freed Czechoslovakia.  It is for this reason that the newly democratic Czech government wanted him to be their Minister of Culture, or barring that, the US Ambassador -- something which Tipper very much so did have a hand in "censoring".
Listen to the albumn "Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention", wherein we get to hear the actual voice of Tipper & her buddies advocating censorship.  It is nominally true that Tipper Gore's campaign only resulted in the warning labels we have today -- big whoop -- but it is also equally clear that she had allied herself at the time with factions in the Senate who wanted outright censorship and control of the "outrageous filth" that was being sold and recorded at the time.  The fact that we only ended up with "warning labels" is in no small part attributable to Zappa's fight against outright censorship.  It's all there in the Congressional Record.
peter johnson