Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Under the Taliban, all music was banned in Afghanistan, except for Islamic religious music. It is still dangerous to play some kinds of music in some countries.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Random Notes, you seem surprised by the idea that other humans would attempt to impose their ideas of morality and political doctrine upon others.
It's amazing Irish music survived at all through the penal laws.
The harmless song "Wake up little Suzie" by the Everly Brothers was banned from being played in puritanical Boston.
If it were not for English rock musicians, many Americans never would have heard Blues music created in their own backyard by African Americans. My old man used to tell me about the times he would sneak off to Harlem to hear black musicians play "banned" rock and roll music in the early 1950s.
My good friend, a brilliant fiddle player who recently moved to the Seattle area, tries to sneak in a few Scottish reels every so often at her Irish session. The denizens of that pub admonish her for it every time. "This is an Irish session" they pout.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Culture, in their eyes, is not something that lives and breathes, but a fossil that must be protected from innovation - and especially from foreign influences"
Thanks mickray. That is a good article. Enjoyed reading how creatively people demonstrate for their music.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Extract from my Thesis 2005
Street (2003) considers the motive of the Taliban when banning all forms of music in Afghanistan as an attempt to numb the mind of the people. He argues it was deliberately eradicating the colour from the fabric of society. He elaborates, saying with music banned in public, funerals and weddings became difficult to distinguish. One could argue the Taliban believed a bland society a controllable one. It is highly significant for our purposes that he therefore recounts,
“news pictures of Afghans celebrating the overthrow of the Taliban regime by digging out their hidden radios and cassette recorders and playing music in public” (p120)
The clearest example, in an Irish context, of control exerted by Government on the use of music was detailed by Curran (Vallely 1996). She asserts that DeValera under influence of the Catholic Church was concerned with the moral well-being of the youth of the nation. Impromptu ceilí dancing at crossroads and houses was a practice long established in rural Ireland. The Church was frustrated that it had little influence on the proceedings at these gatherings. They were portrayed as wild parties of drink and debauchery and the Fianna Fail government was pressured into action. The Public Dance Halls Act of 1935 restricted dancing to licensed halls and consequently the main group with the resources and influence to gain this licensed status was the Catholic Church. Dancing was restricted to parish halls throughout the country and under the vigilant eyes of the local priest these revelries became much more sterile affairs.
Stokes (1997) proposes a theory that could explain the reaction of the authorities in the above example. Firstly one must consider the conventional anthropological concept that most dance is rooted in a societal mating ritual of various forms. Following this we can say that music in its most primeval forms was intended for dancing rather than our model, which includes appreciation. Stokes argues
“Social dance bringing together unmarried men and women in public space is a problem in any society in which social and moral order is imaged in terms of marriage and confinement of sexuality within the domestic unit. The fact that musicians preside over these occasions in the very real sense of controlling the ‘flow’ of the socio-musical space, makes them powerful and problematic figures for society at large” (p23)
He goes on to elaborate that this is the reason that male musicians are often portrayed as pseudo-homosexuals or at very least lacking traditional masculinity. Helené La Rue (Stokes 1997) illustrates the point with a colourful quotation from Stubbes’ book on etiquette from 1583
“Of a Sonne If you would have him as it weare, transnatured into a woman, or worse and inclined to all kinds of whoredom and abomination, set him to dancing school, and to learn musicke, and than shall you not faile of your purpose. And if you would have your daughter whoorish, bawdie and uncleane, and a filthy speaker, and such like, bring her up in musick and dauncing, and, my life for yours, you have wun the goal” (p196)
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Fortunately we no longer have these problems."
Sure we do, at least in the U.S. Wal-Mart is the largest retailer of popular music, and they don't stock music that their conservative, puritanical customer base finds offensive. So record companies sell censored versions of albums to Wal-Mart, with the profanity and sexual references taken out.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I don't know if music *of itself* (i.e., taken separately from any lyric content) has been banned / censored / punished by statute in the UK since after the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite revolts. The latter brought about the proscription of the Highland bagpipes for a time, and after the '15 it seems that certain people in Northumberland were executed for playing tunes associated with the rising. But magistrates etc. would have had plenty of latitude to ban the playing of music they felt might lead to disorder and what have you.
Cromwell banned elaborate church music and theatre/opera, and of course there was no court music, but he enjoyed music himself and allowed pub music to continue. A result was that England was one of the first countries to develop the concert hall, from a start in tavern rooms; another was that English art music had been weakened and was dominated by Continental, especially German, music for a very long time after.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
There is a major difference between a business (Wal-Mart, for instance) choosing not to sell certain music, and a government (the Taliban, for instance) banning music from being listened to. There is nothing that says that Wal-Mart has to sell things they don't want to sell. But if our government *forbid* them from selling it (or forced them to sell albums of the national anthem, or something), that would be a different matter altogether.
So Marklar, no matter what your opinion of Wal-Mart, just because they choose not to sell stuff, it is *not* censorship! And until they are the only retailer of music in the U.S., it shouldn't be a problem. You are free to take your business elsewhere!
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend, if you re-read what I wrote, I was saying that the record companies were doing the censorship, not Wal-Mart.
Censorship is censorship, whether done by the government or by record companies to increase sales due to the market environment. Maybe bowlderization would be more accurate word than censorship, but it comes down to the same thing as far as the artist is concerned.
It's no different than the censorship of network TV shows. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate, but there's still censorship going on by any definition of the word.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend,
I can see your distinction between a commercial vendor's policy and a government ban, but I do think the Wal Mart example is a good one in regard to censorship.
Here's how it goes...
The large retailers can exert pressure on the supply side by telling record companies that they will not stock "X" in their stores.
the record companies will then not be producing things like "X" because distribution is their primary revenue stream.
While Wal Mart is not passing legislation banning music, they are serving to supress the expressions of particular artists or genres. And by making it an economic liability to produce records of artists of that are on the wrong side of WalMart, they have effectively censored those artists.
that they are within their rights to do this is doesn't really matter. Oliver Cromwell was within his rights, and look what a bastard he was.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Of course, the recording companies themselves don't bother to actually produce anything that isn't going to make money anyway. There's the first step of the process as far as censoring goes. If it won't make a truckload, there's no point.
It's not art, it's business, which is why it's all garbage.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"It's not art, it's business, which is why it's all garbage."
Actually, soon it (the record/tape/CD business, as we knew it) might all be history. Many thousands of low-selling albums are available for purchase by download from many sources--including Walmart. Disc space is much cheaper than shelf space, so it costs the e-tailer almost nothing to "stock" an album.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend is absolutely right.
A private business like Wal-Mart can risk selling or not selling whatever it pleases, thank God. Target will be there to satisfy the prole needs of those not digging the Walton family's private tastes.
It's governmentally imposed censorship that's to be feared, and that's especially likely when personality-based mass movements hold folks in eager thrall: Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Khomeini, and yes, FDR. Charisma can be put to hideous use, as the West will soon likely discover. Sigh. But goshawmighty, Happy Friday, y'all!
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'm a "power to the people" type person, which sounds like something from the 60s but, Ive noticed that 60's power to the people types are getting ready to vote in the democrat nominee Barack Obama. ????? The party who wants to raise taxes and shutdown talk radio??? Higher corporate taxes??? Take a lesson from Ireland (the worlds fastest growing economy) and lower the corporate rate to 12%!
Go Ireland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Power to the People!
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Dancing was restricted to parish halls throughout the country and under the vigilant eyes of the local priest these revelries became much more sterile affairs." (jfiddlerh's Thesis).
This wasn't only in Ireland. In Bristol (England) back in the '60s there was a social club known as the Central Catholic Club with premises next to St Mary-on-the-Quay (then run by the Jesuits). This social club provided a venue for young Catholics in Bristol to meet and, hopefully, establish relationships (which is how I came to meet the girl who became my wife). There was always dancing at the weekly Sunday evening social, but I never saw or heard any Irish dancing or music - although mystifyingly a Scottish dancing club used the premises during the week. The Sunday dance was strictly controlled - it was entertaining to see a Jesuit priest patrolling the dance floor with a measuring ruler in his hand making sure the boys and girls didn't get too close when dancing. OK - I've heard those jokes about "mine's a foot as a rule" .
The same good priest was well-known in his sermons for making very pointed remarks about those who came into Mass a couple of minutes late or (even more mortally seriously) left before the "Ite, Missa est" had been said (this was in the days of the Latin Mass). Ah, they don't make 'em like that any more!
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
The record labels aren't bowing to pressure from Wal-Mart to produce the edited versions of recordings, they already produce those because of government restrictions about selling profanity to minors. And it's a business which is largely driven by minors, and the labels want to make money.
So it's the government that is restricting the profanity from reaching children too easily, but that, again, is different than all-out censorship. The government doesn't say that you can't produce the stuff, they just say that you can't sell it to minors. (Thanks, in part, to Tipper Gore). Similarly, they restrict what is allowed on public airwaves for similar reasons. But they *are* allowing the restricted things to be purchased. So call it "censorship" if you want, but it's certainly not "Banning". I would be more inclined to call it "responsible restriction".
And again, Wal-Mart is free to make the business decision not to sell any items with Parental Advisory warnings on them.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
That's not the issue, Reverend. It's not about parental advisory stickers. it's about the fact that the albums themselves are censored without any obvious markings to let the consumer know they are getting an "edited" version. It's also not just profanity and violence, these albums are censored for religious reasons as well.
It's not keeping it out of the hands of minors, it's keeping it out of the hands of anyone who shops at Wal-Mart. And there are many places where Wal-Mart is the only music store in town. The Tipper Core parental advisory stuff is a different issue, that's not what I'm talking about.
You can read more about what I'm talking about here:
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Always an interesting discussion when one begins to 'measure' restrictions. The stores may gauge their product values' on the effectiveness of their ad campaigns. Just remember if you have a sports utility vehicle you may be a bit poorer than when you bought it. Here's my 2 cents (have to go back to work) ~ censorship is ubiqitous & sometimes you can keep art alive by being creative.
As they said about the movie "Code" The controllers were not rocket scientists.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Private retailers are FREE to decide what to sell and what to not sell. Interesting, isn't it, when that freedom angers some people.
I attended a pro-free speech reading of "The Satanic Verses" in a bookstore way back when Rushdie's book was causing an Islamist kerfuffle. That same bookstore's management just a few years later decided that they would stop selling any books written by conservative authors. It was of course hypocritical that they'd support some free speech and not others, but it was absolutely their choice.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
The first tune I ever learnt on the harmonica was 'Music Music Music' a hit for Theresa Brewer around 1949. The song was banned on Radio Eireann at the the time because of the line "I'll do anything for you, anything you want me to" Much too suggestive for our delicate Irish ears. In the 1950s, although Rock and Roll was the 'in thing', you were not allowed to jive in the Irish Dance Halls in London. It was felt at the time that the music and consequent 'jitter bugging' would attract the wrong element. I was once turned away from the Buffalo Irish Dance hall in Camden Town for wearing trousers with 16inch bottoms and a Tony Curtis haircut. I was far from being a Teddy Boy but the look was enough.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
In the fairly recent past there seems to have been more danger that folk / trad would be co-opted by tyrants from Hitler to Milosevic, in the name of a blood and soil mystique, than that it should be banned by them. (New Pure Drop's post reminded me of this.) But I wonder if today's Western world hasn't become too dissimilar for things to happen quite along those lines again.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Music has often been used and abused for political reasons.
In the 1960s as an enlightened society began to emerge, protest songs and singers like Dylan, Baaz, Ochs, Donovan and others were actually in the charts as the record companies cashed in. Once the decision was taken to crush the enlightenment, that was the end of protest songs as a popular medium. No chance of someone being Number One now with a song about the Iraq war.
In the 1970s Punk, which should have been real and meaningful, was hijacked or even invented by the record companies and presented as "a bit of fun". This also applies to current TV programmes which present a caring/equal/socialist message. They are either fantasy, comedy of like "The Simpsons", a cartoon. The real message being sold by the media is "yes we would like a more caring and equal society, but let's get real".
Nowadays when the powers that be control minds via the media, popular music and TV is just so much escapist dross, designed to make us feel "happy" and relaxed, but just at the weekend because we need to work for the masters during the week. The same people invented binge drinking, specifically for weekends, and also condemn it in stentorian (false) tones.
Nowadays in the new inclusive Norn' Ireland, piped traditional music can be heard ion shopping centres, but it is likely to be Phil Coulter. And Ulster-Scots music has its own TV shows.
So music is always being used for political reasons to convey a message. Unfortunately in this age it is the masters who are doing it, rather than the ordinary people.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
If JfiddlerH had done something like the above for his thesis he may actually have achieved something in the academic field.
Our "group" requires certain educational qualifications, at least a Masters, and he falls short. He may have a Masters, or may not, but if he does it will be in something daft.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'm not so sure you'd be awarded one of your prized "educational qualifications" for such empty platitudes as "Punk should have been real and meaningful". (Though the irony that the bauble would be coming directly from the very same entrenched hierarchical society you seem to so much despise is amusing.)
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Baubles much prized by JfiddlerH Mr Llig.
(Though the irony that the bauble would be coming directly from the very same entrenched hierarchical society you seem to so much despise is amusing.)
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
And here, quite frankly, you disappoint me. I am one of the many benefactors of the Butler Act of 1944, an act seized upon by a religious sect in Norn' Ireland as a possible way to secure a future in a land where the odds were stacked against that religious sect.
Hence despite being from the "notorious" Andytown in West Belfast, three quarters of the working class street went to university.
So it was not an hierarchical society, just a society who had attained "baubles" in the outlandish education system. In short, we all seemed to have good memories.
As for despising the hierarchical society as you call it, despise is not the right word, certainly not strong enough. And as the majority of mega rich entrepreneurs who effectively run the world tend to drop out of school aged between 12 and 16 so that they can hawk goods and commodities, I do not see how they bear comparison to "educated" society.
Punk could have been a contender, to quote from a well known film.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'm with the Rev on this one.
Walmart has an inalienable right to conduct its business as it sees fit. Comparing its desire not to identify itself with smut to actual censorship is ridiculous.
Walmart doesn't owe smut producers a living, nor an outlet. And refusing to sell it through their stores does not restrict any artists' freedom of expression a single iota.
Nor does any record label's decision not to associate itself with smut restrict any artists' freedom of expression a single iota. No label owes an artist anything, except what they voluntarily contract to do. After all, expression predates both Walmart and record labels by a considerable period of time. It's clear, then, that neither is needed for freedom of expression to exist. The artist simply has to take on some responsibility for distribution.
Government censorship of ideas is an outrage. Exercising private property rights by refusing to sell smut is not. Indeed, it is a hallmark of freedom.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'll not argue in favour of smut, jwvansteenwyk, nor in favour of censorship, but I can't agree that Walmart or any corporation "has an inalienable right to conduct it's business as it sees fit".
I'd like to see laws changed so that businesses become fully accountable for their conduct. As things stand, they serve their own best interest and not the interests of the community or humanity and the planet as a whole. If ordinary citizens behave as irresponsibly as corporations often do, they get imprisoned, to protect the general public, whilst corporations do appalling things and are immune to any sanctions.
The slogan that we are all free to shop somewhere else is not true. Many products and services are only provided by a few organisations and choice is not an option. The name of the game for corporations is to eradicate competition, not to encourage it.
I have no objection to a business which provides an ethical service to the people and earns a profit from that work. But in practice, these days, many corporations are very far removed from that ideal model.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
In terms of censorship, you may be interested in developments over at Chordie.com. Chordie is a site that acts as a search engine for song tabs and chords, translates these on the fly ( which enables click of a button transposition ) and makes these available for guitar, mandolin, uke etc - again at the click of a button. The tabs etc are all the work of individual players listening to recordings and working out the harmonies which they then post.
Chordie has been at the forefront of a massive growth of interest in all string instruments. I am sure that many of you will have used the service.
It now appears that music publishers are threatening the site and forcing the exclusion of their songs from the site. The assumption is that this is to facilitate sales of sheet music, despite the fact that the tabs etc on Chordie are actually the work of we, the hoi poloi, bashing away at the harmony until we get an approximation to the sound.
Chordie are asking that anyone who knows an artist, whose songs are on the site and is happy for their tabbed songs to remain as an encouragement to players of all abilities, should ask that artist to contact Chordie. Further details are available on Chordie - http://www.chordie.com/ .
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Next, a representative of ASCAP will be busting a session for playing tunes they believe came from a Mel bay publication. Just like they bust bar bands for not paying the dues to them owed. Nothing new but sad sad state of affairs nonetheless.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
OK, several people have come to the defense of Wal-Mart, but my position was not really meant as an attack on Wal-Mart, just a description of what they do.
Wal-Mart isn't the sole player here. The record companies are doing the actual censorship, and ultimately it's the customer base that is driving the whole thing.
Here's what's going on: Wal-Mart is a business that started in rural Arkansas. They have been successful largely due to their ability to go into small towns and take over retail and push the small shops out of business. That's not just my spin on it, that's the actual corporate strategy.
So Wal-Mart has a huge customer base that is dominated by people from small, rural towns. In these kinds of towns, church groups are very organized and quite powerful. If they get upset about something that a local business is doing they will retaliate and can even bring political pressure to bear at the local level. I've seen it happen more than once here in Arkansas, the home of Wal-Mart and its customer base. And keep in mind that the corporate headquarters are in a rural section of Arkansas.
Wal-Mart has a legitimate fear of the consequences of stocking certain things. I think they go too far personally, but it's a fact that they can suffer if they stock CDs that upset their most conservative customers.
So I can understand why Wal-Mart does what it does, even if I don't agree with it. But that doesn't change the consequences of what is going on, it's still censorship no matter where you place the blame.
And what's really going on here is that powerful, organized groups of religious conservatives are exporting their beliefs and sensibilities to the larger society, so that a shopper in Portland can't buy things that are offensive to people in rural Arkansas. Wal-Mart is simply the vehicle for this, and it's a much larger phenomenon than retailers and CDs; I'm sure you can see other places in American society where similar things have been happening, especially since the early 1990s.
To be honest with you, I don't think that Wal-Mart is any worse than the average company, they're just really big and leave a big wake. My best friend works at Wal-Mart corporate and he wants to get me a job there. And I might do it eventually, even though I'd have to live in Bentonville. They're no worse than the other employers I've had, just way bigger.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
'In the 1970s Punk, which should have been real and meaningful, was hijacked or even invented by the record companies and presented as "a bit of fun".'
Bliss, you really don't know what you're on about! Record companies certainly did not invent punk though they all leapt to lap up the gravy (some two years later) when they realized its profitability.
At the very least you went to the wrong gigs. At the very worst you've horribly misunderstood how important punk was at the time, especially in Norn Iron.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I gathered punk was invented by Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood, literally. If it first came into being as a music or band form independently of those two, please enlighten me.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Good grief! Are you saying that record companies invented the Ramones? I don't know much about how it came about on the UK scene, but in New York punk didn't come about for commercial reasons. Commercialization came later.
Punk was a very important transitional phase in popular music. It gave rise to new wave (a lot of new wave bands were actually punk in their heyday) and what eventually became the alternative rock movement. Of course, alt rock was commercialized in the '90s, but it started underground.
Punk was important and massively influential. It wasn't a failed experiment, it was a step forward in the evolution of rock music.
The 'economic liberalism' of Adam Smith, et. al. would definitely include rights of censorship. But for indiviuals? or something else . . . Sam Walton, the Walton family, or some corporate entity; Wal-Mart . . . Green Linnet. . . . the state, the church, The Man?
It is important to be honest about censorship. Someone or something may have a "right" to (limited) censorship. I picking some of this up from looking over the Constitution of Ireland & its' freedom of expression. It does seem to spell out rights of censorship.
Anyway I don't know if I am contributing anything here. Thanks all for a lively discussion.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
That's a good point, Random_notes. Free speech isn't absolute; there are exceptions.
I don't know anything about the Irish constitution, but in the American constitution there are no explicit exceptions to the freedom of speech. A literal reading would imply that the freedom of speech is absolute, but the Supreme Court has determined that there can be exceptions in certain cases, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
So even under American law, in which the freedom of speech probably has more protection than anywhere else in the world, there is some level of censorship which is accepted.
For instance, the FCC regulates speech in broadcasting, which is a form of censorship. But it's acceptable because the right of parents to raise their children in an environment free of obscenity, violence, etc. outweigh the freedom of expression.
But I see no overriding concern in the Wal-Mart thing. The only interests that are served in that case of censorship are the financial interests of the company and the desires of certain communities to prevent access to material they find offensive.
The problem here is that people who are offended by the music being sold in a store don't have to buy it and listen to it. Just because they are offended by it doesn't mean that they have a right to prevent others from hearing it.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
In the strictest sense of the word, the record labels are censoring their own product. But the thing that sets it apart for me is that it isn't forced or mandatory censorship. The uncensored versions of the material are generally still available (or in cases where it's not, it's the record labels choosing not to release something, which is their prerogative.)
And "censorship", as a word, has a negative connotation, but it's not always a negative thing. Our government forbids certain materials, like child pornography and snuff films... Human morality, in general, censors us, which is a positive thing. As much as the idea of anarchy might appeal to some people, I don't think many people would actually like it if it existed.
When someone *forces* censorship of something that you don't think should be censored, that's where it becomes undesirable, but again, it's not forced or mandatory in the case of the record labels or Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is not, in any way, "preventing you" from purchasing any of the un-edited versions of the music. And the record labels have no obligation to release things that they don't want to.
And mickray is right, the world of music distribution is changing rapidly, due to technological advances. So it is pretty easy for someone to sell their music to the masses without it being censored at all these days.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"And mickray is right, the world of music distribution is changing rapidly, due to technological advances. So it is pretty easy for someone to sell their music to the masses without it being censored at all these days."
You have a point, but people who live in places where Wal-Mart is the only place around selling CDs are often people who don't have computers and iPods as well.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Wal-Mart are union busters and should be boycott, so you shouldn't be buying anything there.
As for punk. I have no interest in punk musically, it could and should have been a revolutionary movement, but alas was not. As the record said "The great rock and roll swindle".
I also lived in Manchester during the punk era, and was certainly not going to any gigs.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"So what's your solution, have the government force Wal-Mart to carry things they don't want to carry?"
No, not really. I think that the government often does more harm than good and should stay out of things unless it's really necessary.
You have to pick your battles. I think that the Wal-Mart thing is wrong on an ethical level and is a violation of free speech, but we're talking about CDs sold at retailers, which generally isn't important political speech that needs to be protected from censorship to promote the free exchange of ideas.
That's walking a fine line, but like I said, you have to pick your battles. I'd rather save the powder for when the guns really need to be used.
If Wal-Mart refuses to carry an album that contains important political speech because of that political speech (and not because of profanity or some other reason) then there might be a reason to get the government involved. But that should really only be a last resort to use when it's actually important. That's a point that the ACLU consistently fails to grasp.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
And since it's so completely off-topic, more about punk rock:
Ah, but BB, punk gave rise to bands like the Talking Heads, The Cure, Souixie and the Banshees, Depeche Mode, etc., etc.
How can you deny the inlfuence of punk? You may not like the music or what it led to, but can you really deny the influence of music free from commercial restraints? Nevermind the fact that much of the music became commercialized later...
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I must confess I am not familiar with the bands you mentioned. You have to realise that I once saw a poster for an "Eagles" tribute band and had to ask "Who are the Eagles".
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Ah, well then that's fine, and I can understand why you didn't take to punk. It didn't exactly sound wonderful, but that wasn't the point. It did have an impact on music that came later, though.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Where were you during the Super Bowl a few years ago? Not that I want to see any part of Janet Jackson's body, but as a result there were new regulations and fines (FCC under Michael Powell)! So, if there is a new report, dj, music on a radio/tv station and someone uses as curse the station can get fined. (There are some exceptions.) Therefore, they are no longer completely live broadcasts, but subject to a several second delay.
I remember a Billy Joel song being banned - (Only the Good Die Young) not being played. No offensive words, just the concept of a boy trying to get a good girl to go out with him.
The Rolling Stones changed their lyrics when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show ("let's spend some time together" rather than "the night together). They wouldn't show you what Elvis' lower half was doing.
And, under the Patriot Act (there's a misnomer) they could look at the books you take out of the library. (If the librarian cooperates.) (I believe that part of the law did get passed.)
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"And, under the Patriot Act (there's a misnomer) they could look at the books you take out of the library. (If the librarian cooperates.) (I believe that part of the law did get passed.)"
In the interest of full disclosure, I have an MLIS and I used to be a librarian. Which is why this topic interests me so much.
Before the Patriot Act, most states had laws that prevented librarians from disclosing what their patrons were reading. Librarians have had a longstanding policy of not disclosing such information unless ordered to by a court.
The Patriot Act made it a hell of a lot easier to force librarians to disclose this information. Most library automation software (my area at the time) is still designed to drop reading history as soon as practically possible to avoid revealing reading habits of patrons.
But that's the only barrier now; the Patriot Act basically forces librarians to turn over all documents they have, and all that is needed is a national security letter. And it's easy to get such a letter; you just need to be the government.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
>> If Wal-Mart refuses to carry an album that contains important political speech because of that political speech (and not because of profanity or some other reason) then there might be a reason to get the government involved.
I think you have a distorted view of the right to free speech. You have the right to speak freely, but in no way does that right mean that anyone has to listen to you. Nor does it mean that there has to be equal distribution of all points of view.
Wal-Mart can choose to sell whatever they want (if it's legal for them to sell it, of course), and they also have the right to *not* sell anything they don't want to sell. The only way I could see it becoming an issue is if they were somehow subsidizing a political campaign illegally, or something.
But they could choose to sell only books written by right wing authors, and only sell music by christian rock bands, if they wanted to. And just because they might be the only retailer of books and music in certain markets, that is in no way any violation of people's rights, or freedom of speech!
"Meyer Music Markets places an 'explicit lyrics' warning sticker on Frank Zappa's Jazz from Hell - even though the album is entirely instrumental."
Marklar wrote:
'Ah, well then that's fine, and I can understand why you didn't take to punk. It didn't exactly sound wonderful ...'
Punk shouldn't be off-topic simply because of the BBC's censorial attitude and, as for it not sounding 'wonderful', most of it doesn't on record (though there are some quite staggering 7" singles), but that's missing the point as it was all about the gigs.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend, like it or not there is precident for the government stepping in and telling private companies what to do in the interest of free speech.
For instance, network broadcasting companies are private companies, so I'm sure that you would argue that they can do whatever they want. Yet they are fairly heavily regulated by the government because they control so much of the exchange of ideas. During political campaigns broadcasters are required to give equal time to the candidates so that all candidates have a chance to have their speech heard.
So if you think that the government can't get involved and tell private companies what to do in the interest of free speech, you're wrong. You may not like it, and you may not believe that the Wal-Mart rises to the level of government involvement, but you can't say that companies can just do whatever they want on the general principle that they are private entities.
American companies *do not* have some kind of inalienable right to do whatever they want. Two hundred and fifty years of case law says otherwise.
--------------------
"I think you have a distorted view of the right to free speech. You have the right to speak freely, but in no way does that right mean that anyone has to listen to you. Nor does it mean that there has to be equal distribution of all points of view."
I don't have a distorted view of free speech. I've dealt with it in very real and relevant ways, and I've been trained in the related laws. Free speech protections are not limited to allowing you to speak: the distribution of speech is protected as well. It doesn't just protect your right to write a book, it also protects your book from being banned at the local library.
Does it protect your book from not being stocked at Wal-Mart? So far no, but it is conceivable that a legal case could be made in an extreme case. There is nothing in US law that protects Wal-Mart's right to stock whatever they want. Like it or not, if the government wanted to tell Wal-Mart what to stock, they could. You're assuming that corporations have rights that don't exist.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Sorry, I thought of something I should clarify:
When I say that corporations don't have rights, I mean that there is nothing in the Constitution that spells out and protects the rights of corporations. However, corporations do have some rights under the Constitution by extension of individual rights.
So Wal-Mart does have the right to free speech, and the government can't infringe that right. That means if Wal-Mart wanted to publish a book about how great Wal-Mart is and how terrible their competitors are, they can publish it and stock it on their shelves. In that case the government couldn't tell Wal-Mart not to stock the book, because that would infringe upon Wal-Mart's free speech rights. So in that sense, corporations do have rights.
But refusing to stock a book or CD by someone else is a different story. Wal-Mart couldn't really make a good free speech argument in their favor on that one, because it infringes upon someone else's free speech rights.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Your example of network broadcasting companies and equal air-time is a distinctly different scenario. Yes, the broadcasting companies are private companies, but they do not own the airwave frequencies that they use. Those are owned by the government, and licensed for use to the private companies. So in that case, the government can make rules about providing *the opportunity* for equal air-time in the case of political campaigns within the license. The government does not force radio stations to run an equal amount of time for both candidates, it just mandates that it must provide equal service. So if they give a political ad away for free to one candidate, they must offer that same deal to the other. But if one candidate buys an ad on a station, and the other candidate cannot afford it, the station is not required to run an ad for both candidates. And the "Fairness Doctrine", which used to try to force broadcasters to air both "contrasting views" in the case of politics, was done away with back in the 1980s.
The government does license retailers in the case of tax collection. But to my knowledge, they would have no way to force a retailer to sell something they didn't want to in the name of free speech.
I have been meaning to make it down to Wal - Mart. Is there anyone in their employ who can recommend a good right - leaning, evangelic, celtic CD which they stock?
Oh & suitable for a teenager.
;)
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Random_Notes: -
Celtic Christian Rock? Best albums I have heard in that line are "Iona" and "The Book Of Kells", by the band Iona, and "Perfect Time" by Clannad singer Moya Brennan. I rate Moya, Clannad and Iona very highly - but all have produced some rather floaty stuff that hasn't made me sit up like the above. In particular "Iona" is a remarkable, stellar album - get it if you can. But beware - there will be 999 other Christian outfits called Iona, all probably doing Danny Boy and Lord Of My Vision on low whistles. The Iona I mean has, or had, Joanne Hogg singing and Troy Donockley playing uilleann pipes, which might help with tracking it down.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Well, Reverend, it looks like you're right. I guess I spent too much time protecting free speech as a government employee. I assumed that the law applied to private companies, but I looked it up and the First Amendment only applies to private companies if they are acting as government agents. So I guess I'll have to eat my words on that one.
Still, I oppose censorship whether it's legal or not, and I think that what Wal-Mart is doing is clearly censorship. But I can't ask the government to do anything about it; you're right on that one.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Yeah, I'm not advocating Wal-Mart here, or anything. And I would just assume that they didn't do that. But the way to combat it is to boycott the places of business that you don't like, and let the market determine who is successful, I guess.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Here's the text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The action is by the government (Congress, specifically). As far as any retail establishment - they can sell what they want. However, government can get involved by zoning ordinances (like where you can open an adult book store) - they can't stop you from selling, but they can say in what part of town you can sell.
But there are always encroachments on these rights.
Marklar - yes, a librarian could face charges if they didn't turn over information, but I know a couple who if asked would refuse. They would take the same stance as a journalist who won't reveal a source. When the law was passed, I thought about taking out books on various topics just as a protest.
A free society is only as free as it's access to information. Or, ITM for that matter.
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Yes, I was a librarian when the USA Patriot Act was passed. I was the systems librarian so the decision to turn over records wasn't mine; the FBI went straight to the director. But I made sure the system didn't track any more history than necessary, so there wouldn't be much to turn over (once you turned in a book, no record of your having checked it out remained).
One part of the national security letter thing that you may not be aware of is that there is a provision making it illegal to disclose the fact that the letter was used. So if the government used a national security letter to get records of your reading history, you likely would never know it because it would be illegal for the library to disclose it to you. It's like the police executing a search warrant on your house without your knowledge, and with the warrant being kept secret from you.
That makes it rather difficult to bring a legal challenge to the law, since no challenge can be made unless the victim brings a lawsuit to federal court.
However, I think that Congress has made some changes to the act since I left the library world and I haven't kept up with it. I don't know if the national security letters are still being used. It was all rather machiavellian at the time.
You wouldn't know that a search was requested until you were brought up on charges and they tried to use the evidence. If the warrant was illegally obtained then the evidence could be thrown out and not used against you. But, you wouldn't know that your rights were violated unless it resulted in further action like an indictment (etc.)
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"If the warrant was illegally obtained"
The problem with national security letters is that they aren't warrants. No probable cause needs to be show and no judge is involved. So the evidence can't possibly be illegally obtained, because there's no legal oversight at all.
It's always been possible for the government to obtain library records with a court order. What the Patriot Act did was remove all oversight and accountability.
It's just like what was done with warrantless wiretaps: the government didn't gain the ability to do anything it couldn't do before, it just removed all accountability. So the laws were practically designed to be abused.
Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Fortunately we no longer have these problems.
Historically, though, it was a terrible problem. Is this accurate?
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Under the Taliban, all music was banned in Afghanistan, except for Islamic religious music. It is still dangerous to play some kinds of music in some countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/02/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by mickray
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Fortunately we no longer have these problems."
O yes we do - if your local is a Sam Smiths owned pub
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by domnull
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Random Notes, you seem surprised by the idea that other humans would attempt to impose their ideas of morality and political doctrine upon others.
It's amazing Irish music survived at all through the penal laws.
The harmless song "Wake up little Suzie" by the Everly Brothers was banned from being played in puritanical Boston.
If it were not for English rock musicians, many Americans never would have heard Blues music created in their own backyard by African Americans. My old man used to tell me about the times he would sneak off to Harlem to hear black musicians play "banned" rock and roll music in the early 1950s.
My good friend, a brilliant fiddle player who recently moved to the Seattle area, tries to sneak in a few Scottish reels every so often at her Irish session. The denizens of that pub admonish her for it every time. "This is an Irish session" they pout.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Culture, in their eyes, is not something that lives and breathes, but a fossil that must be protected from innovation - and especially from foreign influences"
Thanks mickray. That is a good article. Enjoyed reading how creatively people demonstrate for their music.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Extract from my Thesis 2005
Street (2003) considers the motive of the Taliban when banning all forms of music in Afghanistan as an attempt to numb the mind of the people. He argues it was deliberately eradicating the colour from the fabric of society. He elaborates, saying with music banned in public, funerals and weddings became difficult to distinguish. One could argue the Taliban believed a bland society a controllable one. It is highly significant for our purposes that he therefore recounts,
“news pictures of Afghans celebrating the overthrow of the Taliban regime by digging out their hidden radios and cassette recorders and playing music in public” (p120)
The clearest example, in an Irish context, of control exerted by Government on the use of music was detailed by Curran (Vallely 1996). She asserts that DeValera under influence of the Catholic Church was concerned with the moral well-being of the youth of the nation. Impromptu ceilí dancing at crossroads and houses was a practice long established in rural Ireland. The Church was frustrated that it had little influence on the proceedings at these gatherings. They were portrayed as wild parties of drink and debauchery and the Fianna Fail government was pressured into action. The Public Dance Halls Act of 1935 restricted dancing to licensed halls and consequently the main group with the resources and influence to gain this licensed status was the Catholic Church. Dancing was restricted to parish halls throughout the country and under the vigilant eyes of the local priest these revelries became much more sterile affairs.
Stokes (1997) proposes a theory that could explain the reaction of the authorities in the above example. Firstly one must consider the conventional anthropological concept that most dance is rooted in a societal mating ritual of various forms. Following this we can say that music in its most primeval forms was intended for dancing rather than our model, which includes appreciation. Stokes argues
“Social dance bringing together unmarried men and women in public space is a problem in any society in which social and moral order is imaged in terms of marriage and confinement of sexuality within the domestic unit. The fact that musicians preside over these occasions in the very real sense of controlling the ‘flow’ of the socio-musical space, makes them powerful and problematic figures for society at large” (p23)
He goes on to elaborate that this is the reason that male musicians are often portrayed as pseudo-homosexuals or at very least lacking traditional masculinity. Helené La Rue (Stokes 1997) illustrates the point with a colourful quotation from Stubbes’ book on etiquette from 1583
“Of a Sonne If you would have him as it weare, transnatured into a woman, or worse and inclined to all kinds of whoredom and abomination, set him to dancing school, and to learn musicke, and than shall you not faile of your purpose. And if you would have your daughter whoorish, bawdie and uncleane, and a filthy speaker, and such like, bring her up in musick and dauncing, and, my life for yours, you have wun the goal” (p196)
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by jfiddlerh
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Fortunately we no longer have these problems."
Sure we do, at least in the U.S. Wal-Mart is the largest retailer of popular music, and they don't stock music that their conservative, puritanical customer base finds offensive. So record companies sell censored versions of albums to Wal-Mart, with the profanity and sexual references taken out.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
jfiddlerh, where can we read the whole thesis?
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by feardearg
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I don't know if music *of itself* (i.e., taken separately from any lyric content) has been banned / censored / punished by statute in the UK since after the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite revolts. The latter brought about the proscription of the Highland bagpipes for a time, and after the '15 it seems that certain people in Northumberland were executed for playing tunes associated with the rising. But magistrates etc. would have had plenty of latitude to ban the playing of music they felt might lead to disorder and what have you.
Cromwell banned elaborate church music and theatre/opera, and of course there was no court music, but he enjoyed music himself and allowed pub music to continue. A result was that England was one of the first countries to develop the concert hall, from a start in tavern rooms; another was that English art music had been weakened and was dominated by Continental, especially German, music for a very long time after.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by nicholas
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'll second feardearg. Any way we can read the rest, jfiddlerh? Fascinating stuff.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
There is a major difference between a business (Wal-Mart, for instance) choosing not to sell certain music, and a government (the Taliban, for instance) banning music from being listened to. There is nothing that says that Wal-Mart has to sell things they don't want to sell. But if our government *forbid* them from selling it (or forced them to sell albums of the national anthem, or something), that would be a different matter altogether.
So Marklar, no matter what your opinion of Wal-Mart, just because they choose not to sell stuff, it is *not* censorship! And until they are the only retailer of music in the U.S., it shouldn't be a problem. You are free to take your business elsewhere!
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
JfiddlerH got most of it from me, and I refuse to allow it to be published.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Come on Mr. Bliss, hook us up!
I thought it funny they tried to portray all male musicians as homosexuals way back in 1583.
Obviously they were jealous over all the attention we get.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend, if you re-read what I wrote, I was saying that the record companies were doing the censorship, not Wal-Mart.
Censorship is censorship, whether done by the government or by record companies to increase sales due to the market environment. Maybe bowlderization would be more accurate word than censorship, but it comes down to the same thing as far as the artist is concerned.
It's no different than the censorship of network TV shows. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate, but there's still censorship going on by any definition of the word.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend,
I can see your distinction between a commercial vendor's policy and a government ban, but I do think the Wal Mart example is a good one in regard to censorship.
Here's how it goes...
The large retailers can exert pressure on the supply side by telling record companies that they will not stock "X" in their stores.
the record companies will then not be producing things like "X" because distribution is their primary revenue stream.
While Wal Mart is not passing legislation banning music, they are serving to supress the expressions of particular artists or genres. And by making it an economic liability to produce records of artists of that are on the wrong side of WalMart, they have effectively censored those artists.
that they are within their rights to do this is doesn't really matter. Oliver Cromwell was within his rights, and look what a bastard he was.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Nate Ryan
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Of course, the recording companies themselves don't bother to actually produce anything that isn't going to make money anyway. There's the first step of the process as far as censoring goes. If it won't make a truckload, there's no point.
It's not art, it's business, which is why it's all garbage.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"It's not art, it's business, which is why it's all garbage."
Actually, soon it (the record/tape/CD business, as we knew it) might all be history. Many thousands of low-selling albums are available for purchase by download from many sources--including Walmart. Disc space is much cheaper than shelf space, so it costs the e-tailer almost nothing to "stock" an album.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by mickray
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend is absolutely right.
A private business like Wal-Mart can risk selling or not selling whatever it pleases, thank God. Target will be there to satisfy the prole needs of those not digging the Walton family's private tastes.
It's governmentally imposed censorship that's to be feared, and that's especially likely when personality-based mass movements hold folks in eager thrall: Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Khomeini, and yes, FDR. Charisma can be put to hideous use, as the West will soon likely discover. Sigh. But goshawmighty, Happy Friday, y'all!
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by NEW Pure Drop® Ear Canal Oil
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'm a "power to the people" type person, which sounds like something from the 60s but, Ive noticed that 60's power to the people types are getting ready to vote in the democrat nominee Barack Obama. ????? The party who wants to raise taxes and shutdown talk radio??? Higher corporate taxes??? Take a lesson from Ireland (the worlds fastest growing economy) and lower the corporate rate to 12%!
Go Ireland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Power to the People!
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by McCracken
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
We use computer voting machines here McCracken, nobody technically votes for anything.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/cosmozcorner/diebold_stalin_voting.jpg
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"Dancing was restricted to parish halls throughout the country and under the vigilant eyes of the local priest these revelries became much more sterile affairs." (jfiddlerh's Thesis).
This wasn't only in Ireland. In Bristol (England) back in the '60s there was a social club known as the Central Catholic Club with premises next to St Mary-on-the-Quay (then run by the Jesuits). This social club provided a venue for young Catholics in Bristol to meet and, hopefully, establish relationships (which is how I came to meet the girl who became my wife). There was always dancing at the weekly Sunday evening social, but I never saw or heard any Irish dancing or music - although mystifyingly a Scottish dancing club used the premises during the week. The Sunday dance was strictly controlled - it was entertaining to see a Jesuit priest patrolling the dance floor with a measuring ruler in his hand making sure the boys and girls didn't get too close when dancing. OK - I've heard those jokes about "mine's a foot as a rule"
.
The same good priest was well-known in his sermons for making very pointed remarks about those who came into Mass a couple of minutes late or (even more mortally seriously) left before the "Ite, Missa est" had been said (this was in the days of the Latin Mass). Ah, they don't make 'em like that any more!
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by lazyhound
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I love living in a progressive world
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by JohnnyVillain
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
The record labels aren't bowing to pressure from Wal-Mart to produce the edited versions of recordings, they already produce those because of government restrictions about selling profanity to minors. And it's a business which is largely driven by minors, and the labels want to make money.
So it's the government that is restricting the profanity from reaching children too easily, but that, again, is different than all-out censorship. The government doesn't say that you can't produce the stuff, they just say that you can't sell it to minors. (Thanks, in part, to Tipper Gore). Similarly, they restrict what is allowed on public airwaves for similar reasons. But they *are* allowing the restricted things to be purchased. So call it "censorship" if you want, but it's certainly not "Banning". I would be more inclined to call it "responsible restriction".
And again, Wal-Mart is free to make the business decision not to sell any items with Parental Advisory warnings on them.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
That's not the issue, Reverend. It's not about parental advisory stickers. it's about the fact that the albums themselves are censored without any obvious markings to let the consumer know they are getting an "edited" version. It's also not just profanity and violence, these albums are censored for religious reasons as well.
It's not keeping it out of the hands of minors, it's keeping it out of the hands of anyone who shops at Wal-Mart. And there are many places where Wal-Mart is the only music store in town. The Tipper Core parental advisory stuff is a different issue, that's not what I'm talking about.
You can read more about what I'm talking about here:
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Always an interesting discussion when one begins to 'measure' restrictions. The stores may gauge their product values' on the effectiveness of their ad campaigns. Just remember if you have a sports utility vehicle you may be a bit poorer than when you bought it. Here's my 2 cents (have to go back to work) ~ censorship is ubiqitous & sometimes you can keep art alive by being creative.
As they said about the movie "Code" The controllers were not rocket scientists.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Random_notes
*
Sorry if that is not clear. But I really do have to rush back to work now.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Private retailers are FREE to decide what to sell and what to not sell. Interesting, isn't it, when that freedom angers some people.
I attended a pro-free speech reading of "The Satanic Verses" in a bookstore way back when Rushdie's book was causing an Islamist kerfuffle. That same bookstore's management just a few years later decided that they would stop selling any books written by conservative authors. It was of course hypocritical that they'd support some free speech and not others, but it was absolutely their choice.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by NEW Pure Drop® Ear Canal Oil
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
You're free to shout obscenities in public. Interesting, isn't it, when that freedom angers some people.
Just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that no one has the right to oppose it.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
The first tune I ever learnt on the harmonica was 'Music Music Music' a hit for Theresa Brewer around 1949. The song was banned on Radio Eireann at the the time because of the line "I'll do anything for you, anything you want me to" Much too suggestive for our delicate Irish ears. In the 1950s, although Rock and Roll was the 'in thing', you were not allowed to jive in the Irish Dance Halls in London. It was felt at the time that the music and consequent 'jitter bugging' would attract the wrong element. I was once turned away from the Buffalo Irish Dance hall in Camden Town for wearing trousers with 16inch bottoms and a Tony Curtis haircut. I was far from being a Teddy Boy but the look was enough.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by Free Reed
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
In the fairly recent past there seems to have been more danger that folk / trad would be co-opted by tyrants from Hitler to Milosevic, in the name of a blood and soil mystique, than that it should be banned by them. (New Pure Drop's post reminded me of this.) But I wonder if today's Western world hasn't become too dissimilar for things to happen quite along those lines again.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by nicholas
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Music has often been used and abused for political reasons.
In the 1960s as an enlightened society began to emerge, protest songs and singers like Dylan, Baaz, Ochs, Donovan and others were actually in the charts as the record companies cashed in. Once the decision was taken to crush the enlightenment, that was the end of protest songs as a popular medium. No chance of someone being Number One now with a song about the Iraq war.
In the 1970s Punk, which should have been real and meaningful, was hijacked or even invented by the record companies and presented as "a bit of fun". This also applies to current TV programmes which present a caring/equal/socialist message. They are either fantasy, comedy of like "The Simpsons", a cartoon. The real message being sold by the media is "yes we would like a more caring and equal society, but let's get real".
Nowadays when the powers that be control minds via the media, popular music and TV is just so much escapist dross, designed to make us feel "happy" and relaxed, but just at the weekend because we need to work for the masters during the week. The same people invented binge drinking, specifically for weekends, and also condemn it in stentorian (false) tones.
Nowadays in the new inclusive Norn' Ireland, piped traditional music can be heard ion shopping centres, but it is likely to be Phil Coulter. And Ulster-Scots music has its own TV shows.
So music is always being used for political reasons to convey a message. Unfortunately in this age it is the masters who are doing it, rather than the ordinary people.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
If JfiddlerH had done something like the above for his thesis he may actually have achieved something in the academic field.
Our "group" requires certain educational qualifications, at least a Masters, and he falls short. He may have a Masters, or may not, but if he does it will be in something daft.
# Posted on July 18th 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'm not so sure you'd be awarded one of your prized "educational qualifications" for such empty platitudes as "Punk should have been real and meaningful". (Though the irony that the bauble would be coming directly from the very same entrenched hierarchical society you seem to so much despise is amusing.)
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
So could I find Frank Zappa's Catholic Girls @ Wal-Mart?
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Bodhi
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Is this why the Irish dance without the use of their arms. In case the clergy were to see them through the window?
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Bodhi
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Baubles much prized by JfiddlerH Mr Llig.
(Though the irony that the bauble would be coming directly from the very same entrenched hierarchical society you seem to so much despise is amusing.)
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
And here, quite frankly, you disappoint me. I am one of the many benefactors of the Butler Act of 1944, an act seized upon by a religious sect in Norn' Ireland as a possible way to secure a future in a land where the odds were stacked against that religious sect.
Hence despite being from the "notorious" Andytown in West Belfast, three quarters of the working class street went to university.
So it was not an hierarchical society, just a society who had attained "baubles" in the outlandish education system. In short, we all seemed to have good memories.
As for despising the hierarchical society as you call it, despise is not the right word, certainly not strong enough. And as the majority of mega rich entrepreneurs who effectively run the world tend to drop out of school aged between 12 and 16 so that they can hawk goods and commodities, I do not see how they bear comparison to "educated" society.
Punk could have been a contender, to quote from a well known film.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'm with the Rev on this one.
Walmart has an inalienable right to conduct its business as it sees fit. Comparing its desire not to identify itself with smut to actual censorship is ridiculous.
Walmart doesn't owe smut producers a living, nor an outlet. And refusing to sell it through their stores does not restrict any artists' freedom of expression a single iota.
Nor does any record label's decision not to associate itself with smut restrict any artists' freedom of expression a single iota. No label owes an artist anything, except what they voluntarily contract to do. After all, expression predates both Walmart and record labels by a considerable period of time. It's clear, then, that neither is needed for freedom of expression to exist. The artist simply has to take on some responsibility for distribution.
Government censorship of ideas is an outrage. Exercising private property rights by refusing to sell smut is not. Indeed, it is a hallmark of freedom.
And we're all free to shop somewhere else.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by jwvansteenwyk
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I'll not argue in favour of smut, jwvansteenwyk, nor in favour of censorship, but I can't agree that Walmart or any corporation "has an inalienable right to conduct it's business as it sees fit".
I'd like to see laws changed so that businesses become fully accountable for their conduct. As things stand, they serve their own best interest and not the interests of the community or humanity and the planet as a whole. If ordinary citizens behave as irresponsibly as corporations often do, they get imprisoned, to protect the general public, whilst corporations do appalling things and are immune to any sanctions.
The slogan that we are all free to shop somewhere else is not true. Many products and services are only provided by a few organisations and choice is not an option. The name of the game for corporations is to eradicate competition, not to encourage it.
I have no objection to a business which provides an ethical service to the people and earns a profit from that work. But in practice, these days, many corporations are very far removed from that ideal model.
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=402
http://www.corpwatch.org/
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html
http://www.democracyrising.us/content/view/57/81/
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
In terms of censorship, you may be interested in developments over at Chordie.com. Chordie is a site that acts as a search engine for song tabs and chords, translates these on the fly ( which enables click of a button transposition ) and makes these available for guitar, mandolin, uke etc - again at the click of a button. The tabs etc are all the work of individual players listening to recordings and working out the harmonies which they then post.
Chordie has been at the forefront of a massive growth of interest in all string instruments. I am sure that many of you will have used the service.
It now appears that music publishers are threatening the site and forcing the exclusion of their songs from the site. The assumption is that this is to facilitate sales of sheet music, despite the fact that the tabs etc on Chordie are actually the work of we, the hoi poloi, bashing away at the harmony until we get an approximation to the sound.
Chordie are asking that anyone who knows an artist, whose songs are on the site and is happy for their tabbed songs to remain as an encouragement to players of all abilities, should ask that artist to contact Chordie. Further details are available on Chordie - http://www.chordie.com/ .
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by stringpicker
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Next, a representative of ASCAP will be busting a session for playing tunes they believe came from a Mel bay publication. Just like they bust bar bands for not paying the dues to them owed. Nothing new but sad sad state of affairs nonetheless.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Bodhi
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
OK, several people have come to the defense of Wal-Mart, but my position was not really meant as an attack on Wal-Mart, just a description of what they do.
Wal-Mart isn't the sole player here. The record companies are doing the actual censorship, and ultimately it's the customer base that is driving the whole thing.
Here's what's going on: Wal-Mart is a business that started in rural Arkansas. They have been successful largely due to their ability to go into small towns and take over retail and push the small shops out of business. That's not just my spin on it, that's the actual corporate strategy.
So Wal-Mart has a huge customer base that is dominated by people from small, rural towns. In these kinds of towns, church groups are very organized and quite powerful. If they get upset about something that a local business is doing they will retaliate and can even bring political pressure to bear at the local level. I've seen it happen more than once here in Arkansas, the home of Wal-Mart and its customer base. And keep in mind that the corporate headquarters are in a rural section of Arkansas.
Wal-Mart has a legitimate fear of the consequences of stocking certain things. I think they go too far personally, but it's a fact that they can suffer if they stock CDs that upset their most conservative customers.
So I can understand why Wal-Mart does what it does, even if I don't agree with it. But that doesn't change the consequences of what is going on, it's still censorship no matter where you place the blame.
And what's really going on here is that powerful, organized groups of religious conservatives are exporting their beliefs and sensibilities to the larger society, so that a shopper in Portland can't buy things that are offensive to people in rural Arkansas. Wal-Mart is simply the vehicle for this, and it's a much larger phenomenon than retailers and CDs; I'm sure you can see other places in American society where similar things have been happening, especially since the early 1990s.
To be honest with you, I don't think that Wal-Mart is any worse than the average company, they're just really big and leave a big wake. My best friend works at Wal-Mart corporate and he wants to get me a job there. And I might do it eventually, even though I'd have to live in Bentonville. They're no worse than the other employers I've had, just way bigger.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
'In the 1970s Punk, which should have been real and meaningful, was hijacked or even invented by the record companies and presented as "a bit of fun".'
Bliss, you really don't know what you're on about! Record companies certainly did not invent punk though they all leapt to lap up the gravy (some two years later) when they realized its profitability.
At the very least you went to the wrong gigs. At the very worst you've horribly misunderstood how important punk was at the time, especially in Norn Iron.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Floss the Tethers
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I gathered punk was invented by Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood, literally. If it first came into being as a music or band form independently of those two, please enlighten me.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by nicholas
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Good grief! Are you saying that record companies invented the Ramones? I don't know much about how it came about on the UK scene, but in New York punk didn't come about for commercial reasons. Commercialization came later.
Punk was a very important transitional phase in popular music. It gave rise to new wave (a lot of new wave bands were actually punk in their heyday) and what eventually became the alternative rock movement. Of course, alt rock was commercialized in the '90s, but it started underground.
Punk was important and massively influential. It wasn't a failed experiment, it was a step forward in the evolution of rock music.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Marklar
Rights of Music vs Economics 101
The 'economic liberalism' of Adam Smith, et. al. would definitely include rights of censorship. But for indiviuals? or something else . . . Sam Walton, the Walton family, or some corporate entity; Wal-Mart . . . Green Linnet. . . . the state, the church, The Man?
It is important to be honest about censorship. Someone or something may have a "right" to (limited) censorship. I picking some of this up from looking over the Constitution of Ireland & its' freedom of expression. It does seem to spell out rights of censorship.
Anyway I don't know if I am contributing anything here. Thanks all for a lively discussion.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
That's a good point, Random_notes. Free speech isn't absolute; there are exceptions.
I don't know anything about the Irish constitution, but in the American constitution there are no explicit exceptions to the freedom of speech. A literal reading would imply that the freedom of speech is absolute, but the Supreme Court has determined that there can be exceptions in certain cases, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
So even under American law, in which the freedom of speech probably has more protection than anywhere else in the world, there is some level of censorship which is accepted.
For instance, the FCC regulates speech in broadcasting, which is a form of censorship. But it's acceptable because the right of parents to raise their children in an environment free of obscenity, violence, etc. outweigh the freedom of expression.
But I see no overriding concern in the Wal-Mart thing. The only interests that are served in that case of censorship are the financial interests of the company and the desires of certain communities to prevent access to material they find offensive.
The problem here is that people who are offended by the music being sold in a store don't have to buy it and listen to it. Just because they are offended by it doesn't mean that they have a right to prevent others from hearing it.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
In the strictest sense of the word, the record labels are censoring their own product. But the thing that sets it apart for me is that it isn't forced or mandatory censorship. The uncensored versions of the material are generally still available (or in cases where it's not, it's the record labels choosing not to release something, which is their prerogative.)
And "censorship", as a word, has a negative connotation, but it's not always a negative thing. Our government forbids certain materials, like child pornography and snuff films... Human morality, in general, censors us, which is a positive thing. As much as the idea of anarchy might appeal to some people, I don't think many people would actually like it if it existed.
When someone *forces* censorship of something that you don't think should be censored, that's where it becomes undesirable, but again, it's not forced or mandatory in the case of the record labels or Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is not, in any way, "preventing you" from purchasing any of the un-edited versions of the music. And the record labels have no obligation to release things that they don't want to.
And mickray is right, the world of music distribution is changing rapidly, due to technological advances. So it is pretty easy for someone to sell their music to the masses without it being censored at all these days.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"And mickray is right, the world of music distribution is changing rapidly, due to technological advances. So it is pretty easy for someone to sell their music to the masses without it being censored at all these days."
You have a point, but people who live in places where Wal-Mart is the only place around selling CDs are often people who don't have computers and iPods as well.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
So what's your solution, have the government force Wal-Mart to carry things they don't want to carry?
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Wal-Mart are union busters and should be boycott, so you shouldn't be buying anything there.
As for punk. I have no interest in punk musically, it could and should have been a revolutionary movement, but alas was not. As the record said "The great rock and roll swindle".
I also lived in Manchester during the punk era, and was certainly not going to any gigs.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"So what's your solution, have the government force Wal-Mart to carry things they don't want to carry?"
No, not really. I think that the government often does more harm than good and should stay out of things unless it's really necessary.
You have to pick your battles. I think that the Wal-Mart thing is wrong on an ethical level and is a violation of free speech, but we're talking about CDs sold at retailers, which generally isn't important political speech that needs to be protected from censorship to promote the free exchange of ideas.
That's walking a fine line, but like I said, you have to pick your battles. I'd rather save the powder for when the guns really need to be used.
If Wal-Mart refuses to carry an album that contains important political speech because of that political speech (and not because of profanity or some other reason) then there might be a reason to get the government involved. But that should really only be a last resort to use when it's actually important. That's a point that the ACLU consistently fails to grasp.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
And since it's so completely off-topic, more about punk rock:
Ah, but BB, punk gave rise to bands like the Talking Heads, The Cure, Souixie and the Banshees, Depeche Mode, etc., etc.
How can you deny the inlfuence of punk? You may not like the music or what it led to, but can you really deny the influence of music free from commercial restraints? Nevermind the fact that much of the music became commercialized later...
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
I must confess I am not familiar with the bands you mentioned. You have to realise that I once saw a poster for an "Eagles" tribute band and had to ask "Who are the Eagles".
My musical interest is rather limited.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Ah, well then that's fine, and I can understand why you didn't take to punk. It didn't exactly sound wonderful, but that wasn't the point. It did have an impact on music that came later, though.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Where were you during the Super Bowl a few years ago? Not that I want to see any part of Janet Jackson's body, but as a result there were new regulations and fines (FCC under Michael Powell)! So, if there is a new report, dj, music on a radio/tv station and someone uses as curse the station can get fined. (There are some exceptions.) Therefore, they are no longer completely live broadcasts, but subject to a several second delay.
I remember a Billy Joel song being banned - (Only the Good Die Young) not being played. No offensive words, just the concept of a boy trying to get a good girl to go out with him.
The Rolling Stones changed their lyrics when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show ("let's spend some time together" rather than "the night together). They wouldn't show you what Elvis' lower half was doing.
And, under the Patriot Act (there's a misnomer) they could look at the books you take out of the library. (If the librarian cooperates.) (I believe that part of the law did get passed.)
I could go on ...
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by grumblingoldwoman
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"And, under the Patriot Act (there's a misnomer) they could look at the books you take out of the library. (If the librarian cooperates.) (I believe that part of the law did get passed.)"
In the interest of full disclosure, I have an MLIS and I used to be a librarian. Which is why this topic interests me so much.
Before the Patriot Act, most states had laws that prevented librarians from disclosing what their patrons were reading. Librarians have had a longstanding policy of not disclosing such information unless ordered to by a court.
The Patriot Act made it a hell of a lot easier to force librarians to disclose this information. Most library automation software (my area at the time) is still designed to drop reading history as soon as practically possible to avoid revealing reading habits of patrons.
But that's the only barrier now; the Patriot Act basically forces librarians to turn over all documents they have, and all that is needed is a national security letter. And it's easy to get such a letter; you just need to be the government.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
>> If Wal-Mart refuses to carry an album that contains important political speech because of that political speech (and not because of profanity or some other reason) then there might be a reason to get the government involved.
I think you have a distorted view of the right to free speech. You have the right to speak freely, but in no way does that right mean that anyone has to listen to you. Nor does it mean that there has to be equal distribution of all points of view.
Wal-Mart can choose to sell whatever they want (if it's legal for them to sell it, of course), and they also have the right to *not* sell anything they don't want to sell. The only way I could see it becoming an issue is if they were somehow subsidizing a political campaign illegally, or something.
But they could choose to sell only books written by right wing authors, and only sell music by christian rock bands, if they wanted to. And just because they might be the only retailer of books and music in certain markets, that is in no way any violation of people's rights, or freedom of speech!
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Here's a couple of intriguing links regarding music censorship - http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/banned.html and http://www.ericnuzum.com/banned/. The latter includes this 'lunatics running the asylum entry':
"Meyer Music Markets places an 'explicit lyrics' warning sticker on Frank Zappa's Jazz from Hell - even though the album is entirely instrumental."
Marklar wrote:
'Ah, well then that's fine, and I can understand why you didn't take to punk. It didn't exactly sound wonderful ...'
Punk shouldn't be off-topic simply because of the BBC's censorial attitude and, as for it not sounding 'wonderful', most of it doesn't on record (though there are some quite staggering 7" singles), but that's missing the point as it was all about the gigs.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Floss the Tethers
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Reverend, like it or not there is precident for the government stepping in and telling private companies what to do in the interest of free speech.
For instance, network broadcasting companies are private companies, so I'm sure that you would argue that they can do whatever they want. Yet they are fairly heavily regulated by the government because they control so much of the exchange of ideas. During political campaigns broadcasters are required to give equal time to the candidates so that all candidates have a chance to have their speech heard.
So if you think that the government can't get involved and tell private companies what to do in the interest of free speech, you're wrong. You may not like it, and you may not believe that the Wal-Mart rises to the level of government involvement, but you can't say that companies can just do whatever they want on the general principle that they are private entities.
American companies *do not* have some kind of inalienable right to do whatever they want. Two hundred and fifty years of case law says otherwise.
--------------------
"I think you have a distorted view of the right to free speech. You have the right to speak freely, but in no way does that right mean that anyone has to listen to you. Nor does it mean that there has to be equal distribution of all points of view."
I don't have a distorted view of free speech. I've dealt with it in very real and relevant ways, and I've been trained in the related laws. Free speech protections are not limited to allowing you to speak: the distribution of speech is protected as well. It doesn't just protect your right to write a book, it also protects your book from being banned at the local library.
Does it protect your book from not being stocked at Wal-Mart? So far no, but it is conceivable that a legal case could be made in an extreme case. There is nothing in US law that protects Wal-Mart's right to stock whatever they want. Like it or not, if the government wanted to tell Wal-Mart what to stock, they could. You're assuming that corporations have rights that don't exist.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Sorry, I thought of something I should clarify:
When I say that corporations don't have rights, I mean that there is nothing in the Constitution that spells out and protects the rights of corporations. However, corporations do have some rights under the Constitution by extension of individual rights.
So Wal-Mart does have the right to free speech, and the government can't infringe that right. That means if Wal-Mart wanted to publish a book about how great Wal-Mart is and how terrible their competitors are, they can publish it and stock it on their shelves. In that case the government couldn't tell Wal-Mart not to stock the book, because that would infringe upon Wal-Mart's free speech rights. So in that sense, corporations do have rights.
But refusing to stock a book or CD by someone else is a different story. Wal-Mart couldn't really make a good free speech argument in their favor on that one, because it infringes upon someone else's free speech rights.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Your example of network broadcasting companies and equal air-time is a distinctly different scenario. Yes, the broadcasting companies are private companies, but they do not own the airwave frequencies that they use. Those are owned by the government, and licensed for use to the private companies. So in that case, the government can make rules about providing *the opportunity* for equal air-time in the case of political campaigns within the license. The government does not force radio stations to run an equal amount of time for both candidates, it just mandates that it must provide equal service. So if they give a political ad away for free to one candidate, they must offer that same deal to the other. But if one candidate buys an ad on a station, and the other candidate cannot afford it, the station is not required to run an ad for both candidates. And the "Fairness Doctrine", which used to try to force broadcasters to air both "contrasting views" in the case of politics, was done away with back in the 1980s.
The government does license retailers in the case of tax collection. But to my knowledge, they would have no way to force a retailer to sell something they didn't want to in the name of free speech.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning consumerism
I have been meaning to make it down to Wal - Mart. Is there anyone in their employ who can recommend a good right - leaning, evangelic, celtic CD which they stock?
Oh & suitable for a teenager.
;)
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Random_notes
Promoting artistic expression
The kid really loves Celtic Christian Rock.Any suggestions?
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Random_notes
**
Just having fun with the ease of TheWeb.
Cheers!
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Daniel O'Donnell.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Floss the Tethers
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Random_Notes: -
Celtic Christian Rock? Best albums I have heard in that line are "Iona" and "The Book Of Kells", by the band Iona, and "Perfect Time" by Clannad singer Moya Brennan. I rate Moya, Clannad and Iona very highly - but all have produced some rather floaty stuff that hasn't made me sit up like the above. In particular "Iona" is a remarkable, stellar album - get it if you can. But beware - there will be 999 other Christian outfits called Iona, all probably doing Danny Boy and Lord Of My Vision on low whistles. The Iona I mean has, or had, Joanne Hogg singing and Troy Donockley playing uilleann pipes, which might help with tracking it down.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by nicholas
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Well, Reverend, it looks like you're right. I guess I spent too much time protecting free speech as a government employee. I assumed that the law applied to private companies, but I looked it up and the First Amendment only applies to private companies if they are acting as government agents. So I guess I'll have to eat my words on that one.
Still, I oppose censorship whether it's legal or not, and I think that what Wal-Mart is doing is clearly censorship. But I can't ask the government to do anything about it; you're right on that one.
# Posted on July 20th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Yeah, I'm not advocating Wal-Mart here, or anything. And I would just assume that they didn't do that. But the way to combat it is to boycott the places of business that you don't like, and let the market determine who is successful, I guess.
Anyway, interesting discussion
# Posted on July 21st 2008 by Reverend
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Captain Boycott:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott
# Posted on July 21st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Here's the text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The action is by the government (Congress, specifically). As far as any retail establishment - they can sell what they want. However, government can get involved by zoning ordinances (like where you can open an adult book store) - they can't stop you from selling, but they can say in what part of town you can sell.
But there are always encroachments on these rights.
Marklar - yes, a librarian could face charges if they didn't turn over information, but I know a couple who if asked would refuse. They would take the same stance as a journalist who won't reveal a source. When the law was passed, I thought about taking out books on various topics just as a protest.
A free society is only as free as it's access to information. Or, ITM for that matter.
# Posted on July 21st 2008 by grumblingoldwoman
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
Yes, I was a librarian when the USA Patriot Act was passed. I was the systems librarian so the decision to turn over records wasn't mine; the FBI went straight to the director. But I made sure the system didn't track any more history than necessary, so there wouldn't be much to turn over (once you turned in a book, no record of your having checked it out remained).
One part of the national security letter thing that you may not be aware of is that there is a provision making it illegal to disclose the fact that the letter was used. So if the government used a national security letter to get records of your reading history, you likely would never know it because it would be illegal for the library to disclose it to you. It's like the police executing a search warrant on your house without your knowledge, and with the warrant being kept secret from you.
That makes it rather difficult to bring a legal challenge to the law, since no challenge can be made unless the victim brings a lawsuit to federal court.
However, I think that Congress has made some changes to the act since I left the library world and I haven't kept up with it. I don't know if the national security letters are still being used. It was all rather machiavellian at the time.
# Posted on July 21st 2008 by Marklar
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
How timely is this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_en_ot/cbs_janet_jackson
You wouldn't know that a search was requested until you were brought up on charges and they tried to use the evidence. If the warrant was illegally obtained then the evidence could be thrown out and not used against you. But, you wouldn't know that your rights were violated unless it resulted in further action like an indictment (etc.)
# Posted on July 21st 2008 by grumblingoldwoman
Re: Banning music & censorship of artistic expression
"If the warrant was illegally obtained"
The problem with national security letters is that they aren't warrants. No probable cause needs to be show and no judge is involved. So the evidence can't possibly be illegally obtained, because there's no legal oversight at all.
It's always been possible for the government to obtain library records with a court order. What the Patriot Act did was remove all oversight and accountability.
It's just like what was done with warrantless wiretaps: the government didn't gain the ability to do anything it couldn't do before, it just removed all accountability. So the laws were practically designed to be abused.
# Posted on July 21st 2008 by Marklar
Would - be censorship of artistic expression
I wish I had something to add.
Good discussion.
I hope what we are doing here* challenges our would - be censors.
* playing music, sessioning, exchanging tunes ~ commenting.
Cheers!
# Posted on July 22nd 2008 by Random_notes