RE: FCC BANS DJ VADIM "Revolution"

From: Marco P (freakymarco@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 23:09:37 CEST

  • Next message: Marco P: "Re: ROY DAVIS, JR. NEW ALBUM"

    Ha, life's weird. I just got back from a record buying
    binge in Vancouver. I was pleasantly surprised to find a
    large number of list-related emails awaiting me - traffic
    seems to have slowed over the summer. Anyways, I
    specifically remember passing up on a Vadim/Jones 12" in
    one of the bins at Zuluu records. Now with all this talk,
    I wish I had picked it up. Anyways, I managed to spend way
    too much money on other things, which i'll maybe address in
    another post.

    Anyhow, since another listee posted a salon.com article
    about 2-step, I thought I'd take the opportunity to post a
    few links to other salon.com articles which are kind of on
    point for this thread, rather than try to think too hard
    and try and come up with my own thoughts on this tired
    monday morning.

    http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/13/eminem_fcc/index.html
    http://www.salon.com/tech/letters/2001/06/14/fcc_eminem/index.html
    A station in Colorado just got slapped with an FCC
    complaint for playing an Eminem tune. Read about it in the
    article, and read some reader responses. I think most of
    us would agree that the real slim shady is a far more
    worthy candidate of censure, but does it matter?
    Ultimately, message should be left out of any free speech
    argument. For speech to truly be free, we need to accept
    all the crappy, racist, homophobic, sexist junk in addition
    to positive messages such as Sarah Jones' (Mind you,
    celebrating homophobic, sexist, violent junk such as Emenim
    is something else altogether). Should we be trying to
    sheild our tender ears from such obsenities? Which brings
    me to:

    http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/11/children/
    http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/11/heins/index.html

    Both of which argue that censuring does society's children
    more harm than good, as well as stating that links between
    'indecent' images/sounds and actions are thin at best.

    When I was a child, I wasn't allowed to watch violent shows
    like the A-team, and my dad frowned upon Looneytoon
    cartoons, as well (but i watched them anyways). Now, I
    like to think I'm a peaceful, respectful adult, not
    specifically because of the fact that my parents tried to
    shield me from violence, but because of the way I was
    brought up in general. While I don't question my dad's
    right to try and censure my intake of certain messages (he
    didn't manage to stop me from listening to Ice-T and Cube
    back in the day, yet I don't plan on going out on a cop
    killing rampage anytime soon), I _do_ question the right of
    a government to micro-manage civil liberties in the same
    manner. Sure the FCC (or the CRTC here in Canada) are just
    doing their job, but it really shouldn't be their job to do
    so in the first place.

    *sigh* I'm rampling again...

    --- "Joni ." <bigorangecat@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Well Carl,
    >
    > While this is a very lengthy and well-written rebutal to
    > make the case of
    > "protect the children" and the FCC was just "doing it's
    > job", you raise some
    > other significant issues.
    >

    =====
    Marco Pringle, host of
    the Fat Beat Diet - Thursday evenings, 10:30-Midnight
    CJSW 90.9FM (Calgary) - in real audio at:
    http://www.cjsw.com

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
    http://buzz.yahoo.com/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 23:37:19 CEST