ROCNews ELECTRONIC BULLETIN #7 - June 4, 2001 Editors: John Woods, Randy Payton, Kenny Moore -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this edition: --INDECENCY MANIA 2001 By Randy Payton --NOT IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN "Indecency," Censorship and the Innocence of Youth Book Review By Randy Payton --MEDIA MARKETING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2001: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK By Kenny Moore --OZZFEST 2001 APPEARANCE OF MARILYN MANSON UNDER ATTACK IN DENVER, COLORADO By Kenny Moore --MUSICIANS ARE (POOR) PEOPLE TOO -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDECENCY MANIA 2001 Dateline: America June 2001: The 'Publicans have lost their majority in the Senate to the Democrats (thanks to "the man from Vermont"). While it's of course music to our ears here at ROC to hear, say, the likes of pro-censorship cold warrior cracker Jesse Helms squeal like a pig as he loses his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee, we should keep in mind that on the other side of the aisle, the ostensibly more "sensitive" Dems are hardly so "sensitive" to free expression issues, either. Recall that the repressive Communications Decency Act (CDA), attempting to deem as illegal so-called "indecency" -however THAT'S supposed to be defined or by whom-was passed at the hands of a majority of BOTH parties in the House and Senate and signed into law by a Democrat president in 1996 before being ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court. And today who is leading the pack to bring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) into the business of determining "indecency" within the recording industry but Senator Joe Lieberman (D-NJ), 2000 VP candidate to Al Gore, another long-time advocate of censorship-by-intimidation, as is Gore's wife Tipper, one of the most despised personalities in the country, who used her political influence to convene congressional hearings into rock 'n roll lyrics way back in 1986, before eventually strong-arming her record labeling schemes into scary reality by 1990. In other words, while we're loving to see the religious right would- be censors dazed and demoralized (via the 'publicans set-back) ROC will keep a diligent eye on BOTH sides of the isle, replete as they are with pols who would just as soon sacrifice free speech to make cheap political hay. We urge our readers and supporters to do the same. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN "Indecency," Censorship and the Innocence of Youth Book Review By Randy Payton Marjorie Heins nailed down the players in the Censorship Wars of the '90s in Sex, Sin and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars ('94), targeting the forces working to decide what you and I, dear reader, may read, listen to, write, and indeed THINK. In her new NOT IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN, Heins examines the very concept of so-called 'indecency' which inevitably underlies the various schemes of the would-be censors, whether in the form of "warning labels," obscenity prosecution, decency boards or legislation regulating content on that once-wild frontier of the Internet. Younger readers who think censorship in the name of "the children" began yesterday with campaigns against Marilyn Manson (or perhaps, before that, 2-Live Crew) will benefit from Heins' great historical sweep. Things havn't changed much (at least in SOME retrogrades' minds) since the time of Plato who urged the suppression of sculpture and "the other creative arts" to protect the tender young from "impure" thoughts. (Plato has actually been referenced in rececent years by various judges in obscenity cases and by legislators in crafting repressive bills like 1996's ill-fated Community Decency Act (CDA), Heins points out.) Heins writes that while director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Arts Censorship Project (1991-'98) she came to realize "not only were children and teenagers the most frequent targets of censorship in those years, but they became the justification for restrictions that affected adults as well. Thus, we saw Internet rating and filtering installed on public library computers; stores refusing to carry popular music that contained warning labels; and laws prohibiting 'indecency' on cable television." This book for me represents the beginning of the end for stupid 'warning' labels and legislation tilting at 'indecency' phantoms. Buy it. Read it. Get your library to get a copy. Quote it far and wide. NOT IN FRONT is indeed an intellectual salvo for "our side." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA MARKETING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2001: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK By: Kenny Moore [Begin with the ominous sounds of Darth Vader's music playing in the background] You knew it was only a matter of time before Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman would get back in the censorship saddle after his defeat as part of the "2000 We'll Decide What's Best For You" ticket with fellow censor Al Gore. Striving for unconstitutional governmental censorship is what this man wakes up in the morning to do, it is what he takes every breath to achieve, and it is what he lives for. By his legislative track record in the past, ROC strongly feels that it is not until HE PERSONALLY gets to decide what each citizen in this country can watch, read or listen to will this man reach any level of contentment in life. With his latest bit of proposed legislation, the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001 (Senate Bill 792), Mr. Lieberman only adds to his growing legacy as this period's most annoying politician. His modus operandi in the Senate seems to be to drone on and on and whine incessantly with his smug, monotone voice about everything that annoys him to where any of us would almost be tempted to vote with him just to get him to shut up. In this legislation he has proposed this time(co-sponsored by Robert Byrd (D-WV), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Mr. Kohl (D-WI)), he is probably using the most skewed and convoluted logic we've seen to date to step up the attack against entertainment that he personally does not like. First, we must remind readers that it was governmental action taken by people like Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman in the past to force the entertainment industry to label their products, towards an end-goal of restricting access to certain material by minors. This is a goal that the US Constitution does not bestow upon our elected officials the authority to achieve legislatively, and specifically prevents through the First Amendment, so the tactic was to use their bully pulpit to gain compliance from the industries through fear and intimidation. These labels are supposedly voluntary, but we can hardly see how they can be considered voluntary when they were implemented by industries with a governmental gun pointed at their heads in the form of threatened unconstitutional legislation. What Lieberman and the Empire are seeking to do now is to use the labeling system that shouldn't be on our entertainment products in the first place in an effort to trap the entertainment industry into some bizarrely interpreted form of false advertising. The Empire is now saying that because certain products have parental advisory labels on them, then that makes this material "Adults Only" material. A key component of the plan of the censors is to steer the collective public mindset towards an expansion of what is considered "Adults Only" material beyond the current hardcore sexual material that has long been widely accepted as being of an adult nature, to further include anything with any remotely graphic level of violence, or profanity. To achieve this, they continue to peddle the false notion that entertainment products *cause* certain behaviors in individuals, eliminating the concept of personal responsibility for one's own actions and ushering in an era where anyone and anything can be blamed for the actions of another if any connection that sounds remotely rational can be established. The legislation proposed by The Empire now targets the marketing practices of entertainment industries in an attempt to achieve censorship through the back door. This legislation would cover movies, music, and video games. Joe Lieberman and company are saying that when a product has a parental advisory label on it, it somehow becomes false or deceptive advertising for a company to advertise that product in a place where children likely to be among those being reached (as defined arbitrarily by the Federal Trade Commission). It's difficult to even begin to explain in layman's terms how much of a stretch this is, but we'll give it a try. Here's an example of how this legislation would work: Warner Brothers releases the R-Rated movie "The Matrix" and begins an advertising campaign to promote the movie. They take out ads in magazines and on TV shows that will reach the most people that they think will enjoy this movie in hopes of attracting the largest audience possible. Say, for instance, they take out ads in various science fiction magazines. If it is determined by the FTC that the magazines they purchase advertising space within are "presented to an audience of which a substantial proportion is minors" (again, as defined arbitrarily by the Federal Trade Commission), then this would be a violation of the law and would be used as evidence that they are targeting minors for "Adults Only" material. So, in practice, what this law is saying is that you cannot advertise such products at all to stay completely safe from government penalty, because you never know exactly how many children will be exposed to your ads and you'll never know how the Federal Trade Commission will define the term "substantial proportion". Could that be 20% of the audience? Could that be 50% of the audience? Could that be 80% of the audience? The industry will not know and will have to test the waters risking substantial penalties for violating the will of the government in deciding what we all can watch, read or listen to. In crafting the language of this bill, Joseph Lieberman has deliberately set out to define the act of advertising as specifically targeting minors if the medium(s) used for the ad campaign happen to have minors among their audience (along with adults). This can include just about everything in our society, which is why we believe Lieberman left the definitions intentionally vague and subject to the whims of the Federal Trade Commission. Lost in the confusion over this concept of "Adults Only" material as it relates to this legislation is the fact that nearly all of this material targeted would fall under a PG or R rating, going by the MPAA movie ratings system, which means that kids are allowed to see any of it either on their own (in the case of PG ratings) or with a parent (in the case of R ratings). That fact blows the theory that the entertainment industries are doing something dreadfully wrong in including minors as among their target audience because minors often will be among their customers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, both morally and legally. What Lieberman and The Empire are truly after is to form a back- door age restriction on the First Amendment because all of this material in question is fully protected Constitutionally and minors are not excluded from having First Amendment rights the last time we checked. The rationale that the Lieberman's of the world are following, that advertising these products in places where children may see the ads is something that should be a punishable offense is *only* logical if you believe the material in question to be the equivalent of what would get an X Rating (again going by the MPAA system), and that is assuming that it is logical to restrict constitutionally protected X Rated material from minors. That is why we feel that these legislative (and increasingly clever) public relations attempts at censorship are really geared towards a drastic expansion of what is considered X Rated material in the public mindset, which will ultimately allow for legislation such as this to receive public support and increase the likelihood of it's acceptance in society. The penalties for violating this proposed law by advertising in places where "an audience of which a substantial proportion is minors", as specified within this law from the Federal Trade Commission Act would be $10,000 in fines for each violation. If the company then refuses to comply with paying these fines, they would be increased to $10,000 per day per violation that the fines are not paid. This is certainly an attempt to hit the entertainment industry in their bottom line to achieve compliance. The good news stemming from this latest attempt at governmental censorship is that we are witnessing the first hints of a spine forming among the entertainment industry that may lead to them getting off of their knees begging to be spared from the government whip. Commenting on this proposed bill, MPAA President and CEO Jack Valenti has given indication that passage of this as law will likely lead to the end of any ratings systems within their industry. "This legislation could be more accurately titled a death-sentence bill for voluntary film ratings," Valenti said. "It will put an end to the movie industry's voluntary film-rating system because it penalizes those distributors who participate in this voluntary system and gives total immunity from any penalties to any producer or distributor who distributes a film without a rating. "Lawyers for the movie companies are not going to stand mutely by and allow their clients, all of which are public companies, to be potentially fined for doing what the companies believe are in parents' best interest," he added. "The lawyers are going to counsel their clients to withdraw from voluntary film-rating systems. Is that what the Congress wants? Is that what parents want?" So in proposing this legislation, Joe Lieberman and The Empire have upped the ante to a point that puts the entertainment industry in a damned if they do, damned if they don't position. If they can either comply with an unconstitutional law and lose substantial revenue through running incomplete marketing and promotional campaigns for their products, or lose substantial revenue through fines imposed for running their marketing campaigns as they naturally see fit (which is within their Constitutional rights), or face the government Inquisition for dropping the ratings system altogether, then we at ROC think that the likelihood increases that they will dig in and fight back instead of continuing the doomed strategy of appeasement. So while being leery of the potential further erosion of our rights, we almost welcome this latest advance in the censors agenda as being something that might wake up the industries to the idea that we've known all along--that the censors will not be content until they make all the decisions on what we as a public can watch, read, or listen to. Our thoughts of this inspiring more of a combative approach from the industry are certainly supported by the statements of Jack Valenti quoted above. It is our opinion that these industries should not sacrifice their Constitutional rights out of fear of government retribution and should take any unconstitutional legislation straight to court. Once declared unconstitutional in court, the matter is settled and done with (at least until passage of the next unconstitutional law). That strategy puts a lot of faith in the judicial system correctly interpreting the Constitutional mandate of free speech and expression for all, but it is a strategy that, in the end, should be far more effective than the doomed path currently being chosen by entertainment industry executives that seem to gullibly believe that government is truly interested in "protecting the children" when they promote censorship legislation and not just using that as a stepping stone towards total control. Always remember that warning labels do not prevent further restrictive legislation from being enacted, THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION DOES!!! To all entertainment industry executives: We at Rock Out Censorship are all now kicking back with a big grin on our faces saying "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!" See where compromising with censors gets you? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- OZZFEST 2001 APPEARANCE OF MARILYN MANSON UNDER ATTACK IN DENVER, COLORADO By: Kenny Moore April 20, 1999 is a tragic day that will live in infamy in our nation's history. It is the day that 13 lives were taken in the Columbine High School shootings. We at ROC do not in any way wish to downplay the significance and horror of this tragedy. Terrible events such as this incident naturally will lead all of us to attempt to answer the questions "Why did this happen?" and "How can we prevent this from happening again?". When the killers in such an incident take their own lives, they also take the answers to those questions with them to their graves leaving everyone to grasp or guess with their own answers. Unfortunately there are many in our society that think knee-jerk, ill- advised, politically self-serving, and/or unconstitutional solutions are the way to prevent horrific moments in history from repeating themselves. We have since seen a wave of repression sweep through our nation's schools in the form of suspensions or punishments seeking to squelch any behavior or expression deviating from prescribed norms under the false hope that such policies will make this world a safer place. For that reason, April 20, 1999 was not only tragic for the victims and their families, but also for the First Amendment rights of students across the country that are paying the price every day in seeing those rights taken away by policy makers that are seeking to capitalize on this tragedy to further their personal agenda of censorship in their desire to force us all to embrace their chosen ideology. Flip forward the calendar to May 2001, and we continue to see such irrational logic being used in the city of Denver, Colorado, where religious zealots calling themselves Citizens for Peace and Respect (web address: http://www.nomanson.org), led by local Pastor Jason Janz, are seeking the cancellation of Marilyn Manson's appearance as part of the OzzFest 2001 tour on June 21st in their city. Their reasoning basically boils down to 1) Marilyn Manson sings lyrics they find offensive or troubling, and 2) the Columbine tragedy happened in the Denver area, so 3) Marilyn Manson shouldn't perform there. Nevermind that it was never factually established that the perpetrators of the murders at Columbine High School were even fans of Marilyn Manson (as was erroneously bludgeoned into the public mindset by a mass-media all to eager to play the scapegoating game), and they were instead fans of bands such as KMFDM and Rammstein. Nevermind that even if these killers were Marilyn Manson fans, that it still would not in any way mean that he bears any level of responsibility for their deplorable actions. The Citizens for Peace and Respect organization will not let facts get in the way of their moral indignation though, so Marilyn Manson, with his reputation as Public Enemy #1 of the religious right, has been bestowed the honor of being the target of the censors wrath once again. As misguided as the opinions of this religious group are, we at ROC do not in any way seek to stifle their ability to express those opinions with our opposition to them. We do not begrudge the right of this organization to peaceably protest the appearance of Marilyn Manson, as we freely admit that they are well within their First Amendment rights to do so. But we do draw the line at any governmental attempts to seek a cancellation of the show or the appearance of any particular artist. As a result of the efforts of this group, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and Congressman Tom Tancredo have also spoken out to urge the cancellation of Marilyn Manson's appearance. So the situation has reached a level where these far right-wing government officials are involved, at least in this capacity. As long as they are merely protesting and voicing their personal opinions, that is fine, but history shows that these protests quickly turn into governmental efforts to cancel shows when elected officials start getting involved, and that is why we have chosen to act at this time. In response to the threat posed by this organization's efforts and the power of their allies among the elected officials of Colorado, Rock Out Censorship is working through local volunteers to conduct a petition drive with the intent of showing that the city of Denver does not speak with one voice in opposition to the appearance of Marilyn Manson in their city, and that there are a considerable number of citizens in the Denver area that place the First Amendment of the US Constitution as having greater importance than any attempt at a misguided, knee-jerk solution to school violence. In addition to organizing this petition campaign ourselves, ROC is also working closely with and helping to advise a local free speech organization that has formed as a result of this situation called Citizens for the Protection of the Right to Free Speech (website at: http://www.supportmanson.homestead.com). This organization has been spearheading the campaign in the area to counter the efforts of Citizens for Peace and Respect. They are working on staging a rally in support of the First Amendment on the steps of the State Capitol Building in Denver on June 20th, the day before Marilyn Manson's scheduled appearance as part of OzzFest 2001 at Mile High Stadium. We are deeply concerned by statements from the Director of Citizens for Peace and Respect, Jason Janz, in his calling on Denver Police to make sure to enforce all obscenity laws with regard to Marilyn Manson's performance. "I'm not asking for government intervention, but I am asking the Denver police to do their jobs," he said. "That means this: If someone commits illegal behavior at Ozzfest, that they will do their jobs and not look the other way. They will stand up and arrest them," Janz continued. We at ROC do not expect law enforcement to turn the other cheek to truly illegal behavior or incidents, but the obvious (to us at least) implication made by this statement is that Janz would like to see his own personal definition of indecent or offensive material substituted for the Supreme Court definition of obscenity in seeking the arrest of Marilyn Manson if/when his performance crosses a certain line in the sand. The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called Miller test from the 1973 Miller v. California court case) is that the material in question: 1) must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person 2) must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive" to community standards and 3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" Clearly Marilyn Manson's songs and stage performance do not meet this three pronged definition of obscenity. What Janz wants is for police to substitute his and/or their personal opinions of what is "indecent material" and use that in place of the legal requirement that the material reach the point of obscenity as defined above by the Supreme Court. I would point out the legal definition of obscenity to Janz and to all authorities and show that Marilyn Manson does not remotely meet this criteria. Marilyn Manson's work is clearly seriously artistic in nature, and often seriously political in nature, so it definitely does not meet the third prong of this criteria to meet the court definition of obscenity. Since very little of his material is really of a prurient nature, we would seriously doubt that the threshold for the first prong would be met. And since tens of thousands of Denver area fans will be in attendance at the event, it's very much debatable whether or not Marilyn Manson even offends community standards in any way at all, given that the vast majority fans in attendence will not be remotely offended. ALL THREE PRONGS must be met in order for something to be declared legally obscene and it would seem to us that any would be censors of Marilyn Manson would have a very difficult time proving even one prong of the Miller litmus test for obscenity. In seeking any arrest of Marilyn Manson for anything he does that does not cross the Miller test line, they absolutely do not have court precedent to support this stance. Janz is offended by Marilyn Manson, Janz feels that Marilyn Manson is obscene, but his opinion is not supported by law or by previous court rulings, and therefore the police should not act on his behalf in arresting Marilyn Manson. We at ROC would be very much shocked if such virtuous and morally superior people as our good friends in the Citizens for Peace and Respect would wish to see the Denver Police Force thumb their nose at the rule of law in such a reckless manner. So with this in mind, we certainly agree with Pastor Janz in the sincere hope that the police at the 2001 OzzFest will show respect for the rule of law by making sure they do not violate the United States Constitution that they are sworn to uphold. In seeking to scapegoat the entertainment industry for all of society's ills, not only do the censors wrongly point the finger of blame at individuals such as Marilyn Manson that are only reflecting the reality they see in society, but they also miss whatever chance they have of finding legitimate solutions to some of the problems. Perhaps if people like Mr. Janz would stop seeking to arrest, suspend or punish people for choosing to express themselves in ways that differ from HIS ideal vision for everyone, maybe we all could get along just fine and people that are presently persecuted on a daily basis for the "crime" of being different might not feel the inclination to snap mentally or lash out in a violent manner as the two killers at Columbine High School did on that fateful April 20, 1999 day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNOUNCEMENT: Rock Out Censorship is pleased to announce that we will likely have our anti-censorship information booths on the entire 2001 OzzFest tour. At our booth we will have petitions, ROC merchandise and loads of informational material to keep you educated on the issue. If you plan to be in attendence at OzzFest this year, make sure you drop by our booth to take any new information we may have, sign any new petitions you haven't signed yet, or to just say hello. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MUSICIANS ARE (POOR) PEOPLE TOO [please forward to other musicians] "I think our goal should be to take care of each and every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they come from."-- Steve Earle We are Rock A Mole (rhymes with guacamole) Productions in Los Angeles. We are artists, musicians, and writers. We are stepping to you to let you know about something very important that is happening in our country. Did you know that there is a large and growing movement to end poverty led by the poor themselves? Did you know that musicians such as Bruce Springsteen, Wyclef Jean, Jackson Browne, Tom Morello, Sara Hickman, Ice T, Steve Earle, and Wayne Kramer have aligned themselves with this movement? "I believe that the only people who are capable of leading a movement to end poverty are poor people. You can't go begging with your cup, knocking on the master's door and say, 'Please sir, may I have another portion?' That's just not how it works. All progressive change has come from below."--Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine Under the leadership of the Poor People's Economic Campaign for Human Rights (PPEHRC), dozens of poor people's organizations have come together to organize for what they know this wealthy country can give them: Food, housing, medical care, and education. These organizations represent people of all races and all ages, spanning the U.S. from the inner cities to the backwoods of Appalachia to the fields of Florida. "Oh yes, it has to come from the bottom up anyway, it has to come from the bottom up."--Mahdi of Krown Ju-elz The PPEHRC is in the process of waging a lawsuit before the Inter-American Commission of the Organization of American States (OAS), charging the United States government with violating the economic human rights of its citizens-- the rights to food, housing, health care, and education. All across the country, the PPEHRC is going door to door and gathering the testimony of people who have been denied these rights. Music has been a vital part of the battle to end poverty--it helps to connect people up, to raise consciousness, to build morale, and to raise money. And, of course, musicians are poor, too. Paying the rent, struggling to find health care, getting a day job-- all of this impacts on the lives of musicians and on our ability to pursue our creative visions. So it's only natural that the PPEHRC campaign should include the testimony of musicians, so that the voices of musicians can be combined with the testimony of other people who are struggling to survive. Could you please answer the following three questions (at any length you want) and send them to us at rockrap@aol.com so that we can make sure they become a part of the PPEHRC campaign? Thanks, peace, and keep making music-- 1. How many people do you know who've performed at a benefit for a musician who was unable to pay his or her medical bills? 2. Have you or any other musicians you know ever had problems obtaining health care? 3. Have you ever had a problem with finding a place to stay or paying the rent? Please include your name (band name, if any), address, and email address. Thanks! Rock A Mole Productions P.O. Box 341305 Los Angeles, CA 90034 310-398-4477 rockrap@aol.com For more information on the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, contact: Kensington Welfare Rights Union Box 50678, Philadelphia PA 19132 215-203-1945 http://www.kwru.org E-Mail: kwru@libertynet.org P.S. Rock A Mole Productions, in association with the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, is producing The Ultimate Song, a film about music's role in the struggle to end poverty. The film includes Wyclef Jean, Jackson Browne, Wayne Kramer, Steve Earle, Sara Hickman, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, and Ice T. The film will be completed this summer and VHS copies will be sent FREE to any musician who wants one. If you are a musician and would like a copy, contact Rock A Mole at P.O. Box 341305, LA CA 90034 or at rockrap@aol.com "We have the resources to end poverty, the question is do we have the will to end poverty? I really think that it takes throwing your lot in with those that are impoverished."--Jackson Browne -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS INFORMATION: Randy Payton (330) 339-2684 randyp@roc-news.com You can e-mail the ROC BULLETIN Collective at: roc-hq@theroc.org (John Woods) randyp@roc-news.com (Randy Payton) or roc@theroc.org (Kenny Moore) --------------------------------------------------------------------------