Essay: "Music Censorship", Part 3 of Several

Essay:  "Music Censorship", Part 3 of Several

   [Note: The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s and as part of my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays before record labelling was imposed nationwide.]

       Tipper Gore, I must admit, seems sweeter and a lot less arrogant than most would-be censors, but I don't approve of what she has done nevertheless. Members of the PMRC desired warning labels on records indicating such  'offenses' as sexual innuendoes, profanity, violence, rape and murder, plus implicit or explicit attacks on religion, or alleged encouragement of evil or Satanism. I suppose certain subjects children ideally should not be exposed to, but in a supposedly free society that is up to parents and not the government or other busybodies. The members of the PMRC claim that record labeling is not a form of censorship, but what else can it be called? By the way, since ignorance is bliss, the blissfully ignorant will likely allow record labeling lead to censorship of lyrics and concert performances, pulling of certain music recordings from stores, blacklisting of certain artists who make their living in the music industry (many of which have already occurred),; plus further whittling away of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and freedom of choice in all of its forms. This whole situation seems to parallel McCarthyism and the resultant Hollywood blacklisting.  (to be cont'd)   

Essay: "Music Censorship", Part 2 of Several

Essay: "Music Censorship", Part 2 of Several

[Note: The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s and in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays before record labelling went into effect.]

        Until the last decade or so, no one even thought of labelling records, that is until some busy-body senator's wives started squawking about so-called  "morally offensive music videos and lyrics." About the time that Ronald Reagan came into power, Tipper Gore, wife of former Tennessee senator and later veep Albert Gore, formed the Parents Music Resource Center (the PMRC). The PMRC is mostly made up of the wives of Congressmen and other politically connected individuals; apparently with nothing better to do than to try to use their husbands' collective political influence to do their part in chipping away at our First Amendment rights by trying to impose the labelling of controversial or allegedly  'offensive' music.  By the way, Tipper Gore's involvement with the PMRC may have cost her husband, Al, the Democratic nomination for President in the 1988 election.  (to be cont'd) 

       

 

Essay: "Music Censorship", Part 1 of Several

Essay: "Music Censorship", Part 1 of Several

  [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern  student newspaper in the early  '90s and as part of my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays before record label censorship was imposed.]

       There were bills (in the early '90s) in at least seven states to require warning labels on records which were deemed offensive or inappropriate for children. Alabama, for instance, already had laws promoting censorship of music, in which record store owners or employees could actually be arrested for selling records (usually to minors) deemed morally offensive by local authorities. Florida likewise had a nearly identical bill. Many of these bills advocating the enforcement of record labelling went into law nationwide. (to be cont'd)

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 5 of Several

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 5 of 5

       These alleged morality groups, who are anything but moral, are so persistent that bookstores and certain publishers filed a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit against one such group, and the American Publisher's Association paid for an ad urging American's to support First Amendment rights. The advertisement, which appeared in many newspapers nationwide read:

       "I agree. Americans have the right to buy, stores have the right to sell, authors have the right to write, and publishers have the right to publish Constitutionally protected material. Period."

 I couldn't say it better myself.  Please support that right. Heed the message. Don't allow a small minority of religious fanatics and prudes dictate what you can or cannot buy, sell, read, write, look at, listen to, think, do, etc.

       

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 4 of Several

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 4 of 5

       The so-called morality groups like to try to ban books from schools and libraries, try to expand the scope of laws promoting censorship, and incessantly harass stores that carry Sports Illustrated (due to the Swimsuit Edition), Playboy, and other periodicals that their ilk take offense to. Recently, moralists (the infamous PMRC) succeeded in labeling records deemed offensive, in addition to meddling with artists rights in other ways. 

       Count on it, this censorship will never stop and will only get worse, at least as long as we allow it to continue. In the moralists' eyes, censorship makes everyone better off because there are fewer things available to tempt anyone to do what is wrong. (from their narrow point of view) Instead, as most everyone else must come to realize before it's too late, censorship in any form makes America a blander, harsher and a less free society. Who elected these moralists to make these decisions for us anyway? (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper and in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays.]

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 3 of Several

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 3 of Several

       Another example of how religion tends to cling to archaic and antiquated ideas is embodied by such a person as the Reverend Donald Wildmon, head of the so-called  American Family Association. Wildmon's alleged morality group epitomizes the concept of the Closing of the American Mind. For instance, they like to boycott television shows which depict subjects which are outside of their narrow ideology. They do likewise with books and magazines, only they sometimes use underhanded tactics and intimidation to try to get bookstores and other businesses to comply with their petty, old-fashioned, and out of date agenda. The tactics of the AFA are sleazy at best. They don't try to sway voters to their way of thinking, perhaps because they know that most people would never think in their narrow-minded way. Instead, these self-proclaimed moralists use constant harassment to try to bully politicians (some of whom are themselves supposed moralists), corporations, and others to see things their way by giving-in to the morality groups demands. To make matters worse, some of our elected officials are sympathetic to the so-called  "family values" which these alleged morality groups claim to practice. (Their underhanded  tactics expose them for the frauds they really are.).

       Appalling as it may sound, a small minority of vocal loudmouths can wreak a lot of havoc on individual, civil, and Constitutional rights and other liberties we all tend to take for granted, especially if the rest of us don't act or speak up for our rights; and let these bastards get away with what they are doing to this nation on a daily basis.  (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern   student newspaper in the early '90s and in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die"  And Other Essays.]

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 2 of Several

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 2 of Several

       One of the typical features of the Puritans of the sixteenth century was that everyone was dressed in repressed black and white clothing, and anyone inclined to dance, for whatever reason; would be tried and probably burnt at the stake for  "consorting with the Devil". For at least three hundred years, we have hopefully progressed beyond the archaic and antiquated belief of associating dance with evil or as having anything to do with the influence of  "the Devil". At least to me, this idea is completely absurd and ludicrous. How these ridiculous religion-inspired fallacies persist is beyond all comprehension. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s and as part of my unpublished manuscript "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays.]

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 1 of Several

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship, Part 1 0f Several

       In Missouri, a certain religious sect demanded that a certain high school forego their annual dance because, according to the sect, "Dancing is evil and is a device of the Devil". It is hard to believe that in this day and age people would have such ridiculous and archaic superstitions.

       Admittedly, I don't dance. I can't dance, and I don't particularly care to learn to dance. I also never enjoy myself much at dances. In fact, at most dances in ten minutes I'm late for the door. As a matter of fact, I generally don't give a damn about dancing or dances. What I am concerned about is the reason why this dance in Missouri was banned. After all, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in this country. Fortunately for the rest of us, back in the day Thomas Jefferson had the wisdom to see the abuse of power which would result if Church and State were not separate. Thus, Jefferson helped make sure that Church and State were separate entities in America. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court (in the early '90s) set our nation back several centuries by allowing this ban to be upheld. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s and in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays.]

Poetry: "He Who Puts His Smokes Away..."

Poetry: "He Who Puts His Smokes Away..."  A work in progress

               He who puts his Smokes away

               Lives to smoke another day.

               He who puts Smokes away for good

               Lives much longer than he otherwise would.

                He who never smoked at all

                Grew so big and strong and tall.

                 If a would-be smoker never starts

                 He'll have much stronger lungs and heart...

         

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 8 of 8

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 8 of 8

       An unfortunate result of the new NC-17 rating is that many morality groups and religious leaders want rating boards to rate films on a community by community basis. As a result, filmmakers in certain areas of the country may lose their artistic freedom, and likewise actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, movie theaters, and potential moviegoers may lose the freedom to choose what film(s) they would like to see, make, buy, or audition for.

 [The original version of this essay, then entitled   "NC-17 Films", first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays", plus in UMass/Boston's  Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-'90s.]

       

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 7 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 7 of 8

       NC-17 is nor so much a moral issue, but an issue of freedom vs. censorship. In a free country we can live with NC-17 films. The alternative is to allow a few morally deluded moralists decide what is moral or acceptable for everyone. Then we will all be up the creek, because freedom will be in jeopardy. By the way, "protecting the children" as an excuse to censor is a right-wing cop-out. There ought to be a way to allow those of age to watch and to keep children out if need be. If you value freedom, and if you deplore censorship, urge the MPAA to retain the NC-17 rating. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay, then entitled  "NC-17 Films" was first published in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-'90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 6 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 6 of Several

       Almost as soon as it was established, small-minded people already started to fight against NC-17 films. As could probably be expected, the pesky ultra-right-wing religious group, the American Family Association (with less than 3000 members in the early '90s) threatened to boycott Blockbuster Video if they ever started to carry NC-17 films. Soon afterward, Blockbuster Video caved and announced that no NC-17 films would be sold or rented in their stores.  A similar morality group,  Focus on the Family, pressured Burger King to stop advertising on allegedly violent or to them  'objectionable' tv programs, and BK likewise gave-in to a small minority of vocal loudmouths who put their narrow agenda ahead of the majority's interests. Likewise, Catholic bishops, continuing in their antiquated pseudo-moral arrogance, have judged the NC-17 rating sight-unseen. Fortunately, the notoriety of these prudes may result in more people seeing such films. Perhaps most disgraceful of all, even some major newspapers have refused to advertise NC-17 films. So much for the First Amendment! Those newspapers, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, and others deserve to be boycotted for promoting or giving-in to censorship.  (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in mu unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays and appeared in UMass/Boston's Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 5 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 5 of Several

       "Henry and June", the first movie officially granted an NC-17 rating, ended up being a big box-office failure. It lost money in part because, in most cases, television, most newspapers, and later video stores would not advertise or carry the film. And besides, certain cinemas, due to pressure by politicians, self-appointed morality groups, and narrow-minded citizens, would not or could not carry NC-17 films. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 4 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 4 of Several

       An alternative to receiving an X or NC-17 rating was and is to fail to submit a film to be rated at all. Filmmakers are charged a fee in order to be rated. It is hoped that once a movie is rated, the target audience will more than offset the fee that must be paid before film is rated. Since children under 17 are supposedly restricted from seeing R-rated movies, a movie which receives an R-rating could receive much lower box-office receipts than it might have earned as a PG or PG-13 film. When there was still the possibility of receiving an X-rating from the MPAA, an X-rated film could lose a substantial portion of its potential audience. So far, the impact of an NC-17 rating has had a negative consequence on a movie's audience appeal and on box-office receipts. So far, no NC-17 films have been very successful at cinemas that I know of, but Paul Verhoeven's notorious  "Showgirls" has become a cult classic on home video. Likewise, unrated films could also lose a large share of their potential audience. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's  Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 3 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 3 of Several

         Events Leading Up To the Creation of the NC-17 Rating:

       In 1989 and 1990, at least ten independent and foreign films received an X-rating. Among them were:  "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and her Lover", "Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!", "Hardware" (all by Miramax Studios), and a number of other films as well. The makers of these ten films sued the Motion Picture Assocation of America (the MPAA or Hollywood's official movie-rating service) over receiving a box-office obliterating X-rating, and as a result, some of the films were either re-edited to receive an R-rating or were released unrated. (I believe movie companies have to pay for the  'privilege' of being rated.) Also, such big-name filmmakers as Francis Ford Coppola ["The Godfather", etc.], Spike Lee ["Do the Right Thing", etc.], Penny Marshall, Ron Howard ["Apollo 13", etc.], and Rob Reiner ["This Is Spinal Tap", etc.], plus the late movie reviewer Gene Siskel and his currently cancer-stricken colleague Roger Ebert, all called for the abolition of the X-rating for mainstream movies.  Within a year, the MPAA created and copyrighted the NC-17 rating, for films too controversial for an R-rating, but not for pornographic or so-called adult films. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's Mass Media

student newspaper in the mid-90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 2

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 2 of Several

       Many non-pornographic films have received an X-rating by the MPAA over the years. In 1969, "Midnight Cowboy" received an X-rating, and actually went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. In 1971,  "A Clockwork Orange" received an X-rating and went on to become a cult classic. I 1973, "Last Tango In Paris",  starring Marlon Brando, received an X-rating. I never saw that film, but I know that Brando never would have been a contentuh if he had ever appeared in a smutty film. Also, in 1986, "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" received an X-rating.

       For years, the MPAA had been granting films by major studios an R-rating, while giving similar films by independent and foreign filmmakers the dreaded X. For example, if the same rule that applied to independent and foreign films applied to the major studios, such films as  "Fatal Attraction" and  "Dangerous Liaisons", among others, might have received an X-rating. By copyrighting the NC-17 rating, the MPAA could, it was hoped, rate violent or risque' films without stigmatizing them. (to be cont'd)

[The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's  Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship"

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 1 of Several

       In 1968, the Motion Picture Association of America, formerly headed by Jack Valenti, was established as a nationwide rating system for movies. Before the MPAA came into existence, communities, municipalities, religious groups (i.e. the so-called Catholic Legion of Decency and the Hays Code), and sometimes even the government decided what movies were suitable for families and individuals.

      The MPAA has the following ratings for films: Rated G (General Audiences) for anyone of any age to see; PG (once GP) (Parental Guidance) recommended for anyone aged 12 or older or if approved by a parent or guardian; Rated R (Restricted) for anyone aged 17 or older to see; and Rated X , strictly for adults. In the early eighties, the rating system was expanded to include PG-13 films, for movies in between a PG and R rating, recommended for children over aged 13. The ratings G, PG, PG-13 and R were all copyrighted by the MPAA, while the X-rating was not. Due to the failure to copyright the X-rating, pornographers soon adopted the notorious X-rating for their own smutty films.  As a result, ever since then, any film given an X-rating, regardless of reason has automatically assumed to be pornographic.  In hopes of correcting this potential oversight, the NC-17 rating (No Children Under 17 admitted) was announced and copyrighted in the early 1990s, to try to escape the stigma of the X. (to be cont'd)

[The original version of this essay entitled  "NC-17 Films" first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern  student newspaper in the early '90s and as part of my unpublished manuscript "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays and also later appeared in UMass/Boston's student newspaper The Mass Media in the mid '90s.

Essay: "The PTC and Censorship"

Essay: "The Parents Television Council and Censorship"

       The Parents Television Council is a mostly right-wing (it claims to be non-partisan) pressure group, which under the pretext of  "protecting children" bullies its way into impinging on the rights of potential viewers and artists of television and movies. According to the PTC website, the Parents Television Council has at least "90,ooo+ active members", including such right-wingers as movie critic Michael Medved.  On their website is a section which encourages members or potential members to complain to the Federal Communication Commission (the FCC) about programs individuals don't like, whether or not they actually watched the program(s).  In fact, a majority of complaints to the FCC regarding alleged  "indecency" over the airwaves are attributed to the self-appointed prudes and censorship fanatics of the  PTC.

       On the Parents Television Council website is a list of both so-called  "Best Shows" for families and  "Worst Shows" for families. Under the  "Best Show" category are mindless G-rated fluff like  "Dancing With The Stars" and similar stuff I wouldn't waste my time or be caught dead watching.  Under the so-called  "Worst Show" category were such shows as  the medical drama  "House"; the murder mystery  "Harper's Island"; the science-fiction programs "Dollhouse" and  "Fringe"; plus  "Medium", "My Name Is Earl", and  "Supernatural". Ironically or not, I watch all the programs on the so-called  "Worst" list every week. Admittedly, most, if not all of these shows are arguably inappropriate for young children, but be that as it may; I don't want any right-wing zealots or left-leaning PC police dictating what I can read, write, view, listen, create, or think.

       According to the PTC website, other prudes and zealots striving to censor the airwaves etc. include the following groups:  "Focus On the Family; Concerned Women For America;  Citizens For Community Values; the (infamous)  American Family Association; and the Illinois Family Institute" among others. These modern versions of the Catholic Legion of Decency (self-appointed prudes and morality police of the early to late 20eth century) use intimidation and sometimes even underhanded tactics to impose their so-called values on the rest of us.  If you disagree with Censorship, including the self-censorship imposed after Super Bowl  2004's "Nipplegate" incident you only have yourself to blame if you don't oppose such individuals, groups and politicians who will curtail your rights and censor what you listen, view, write or think or show dissent against injustice of any kind.

Poetry: "If It Doesn't Rhyme"

Poetry:  "If It Doesn't Rhyme"

              If it doesn't rhyme

              It ain't a crime

              Either way, you won't likely earn a dime

              Instead you'll toil through the slime

              Or do something else to waste your time

               And get your fingers filled with grime...

Poetry: "I Hate My Job"

Poetry:  "I Hate My Job"

        I hate my job

        I've got to leave

        For something else, I do believe

        I hate my job

        I want to go 

        Before my resentment starts to grow

         I hate my job

         It truly sucks

         It's hardly worth my fifty bucks

         I hate my job

         It causes stress

         I'd do something more pleasant

         For even less

         I hate my job

         I often cry

         To stay for life, I'd rather die... (tbc?)

Essay: "Bleep the FCC, the Supreme Court and the PTC"

Essay:  "Bleep the FCC, the Supreme Court and the PTC"

       This week or early last week (week of between April 26 to May 2 or thereabouts) in  "FCC v. Fox TV" (according to the Parents Television Council website) the Roberts Court ruled in a majority (of mostly right-wing majority of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice Roberts and Sam Elite-o plus Justice Kennedy)) decision that the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or the Federal Censorship Gestapo) is within their rights to heavily fine radio and television stations for perceived or actual  "indecency" over the airwaves. To the Parents Television Council (the PTC) and other right-wing pressure groups this ruling is a victory for so-called  "decency", but for the rest of us this is a disappointing loss of freedom of choice and speech for both viewers, listeners and artists of all kinds.

        The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly states:  "Congress shall make no law abridging speech..." Why is broadcast tv and radio exempt from the First Amendment? And, why does Congress and the Courts ignore the First Amendment to accommodate a small minority of vocal loudmouths who are offended by almost anything? Also, why aren't more people joining or forming counter-pressure groups like the ACLU, People For The American Way, and Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, etc. I really resent having other people's values or supposed morals imposed on me. Why don't these people be more Christ-like by speaking out against economic and other true forms of injustice? If it were up to me I would have the FCC abolished as a cudgel of ruthless censorship, coercion of artists, viewers and listeners, or perhaps even proselitizing of hypocritical Christian values. We are for the most part a secular nation and not Jesus-land (except for the so-called Bible Belt). These pressure groups can take their phony values and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. 

       By the way, according to the parentstv.org website (website of the parents television council) there are at least 90,000 members of the PTC. In other words, 90,000 some-odd self-appointed busybodies pressure the media against the wishes of millions of potential viewers, listeners and artists.