DELANO GILKEY REPLIES TO ROC AND ROC FIRES BACK

by: John Woods and Kenny Moore

To ROC Readers and Mailing List subscribers,

As a result of our posting information about the anti-Manson/Goth/Death Metal seminars held in Fort Worth, Texas last month by the Crime Prevention Resource Center (CPRC) we received a response from one of the participants of said seminars. Delano Gilkey is a Protective Services Administrator for the Rock Island Regional Office of Education in Moline, IL. Gilkey is the author of the pamphlet "What's A Parent To Do" in which the advocation for hospitalization of kids who are fans of certain music is made. Gilkey was a guest at the CPRC seminars and his pamphlet was distributed to those in attendance.

Apparently Mr. Gilkey has been contacted by many of you who have read our posting, and by contacting him many of you have apparently expressed your views concerning the program that he and CPRC are advocating. We thank those of you who took the time to contact Gilkey and express your views.

In Gilkey's response to us the only point that he can make is that we were not "factual" in our reporting of events in Fort Worth. He also sent us a message that he has sent out to all who have contacted him. In the following message we will provide a breakdown of Gilkey's two messages that we at R.O.C. have responded to on a line-by-line, point-by-point basis. The text from Gilkey's letters is complete from what was sent to us, but we have broken it up in the response so that we could respond to each point individually. In the text you'll see in the following message, we indicate which text was Gilkey's and which text was the ROC response. The ROC response was prepared by Kenny Moore and myself.

We sent this to both Gilkey and CPRC head honcho Ramon Jacquez asking them to set the record straight on anything that (in their opinion) we were not "factual" on. Nearly two weeks have now past since our sending of our answer and we have not heard a word from either Gilkey or Jacquez.

Gee, if they believe so strongly in their stance on this music and its fans, what's taking so long with answering the points we have raised? Since all this correspondence was done via electronic mail, we feel two weeks is adequate time for a response. Perhaps when confronted with real hard arguments they can't articulate themselves in the same manner as they do in a room full of cops and school administrators.

John Woods
Co-Founder
Rock Out Censorship (R.O.C.)
roc-hq@theroc.org

Gilkey's response to ROC:

Gilkey:
Mr. Wiese, and Mr. Woods,

First I want to thank-you for the interest that you have shown for standing up for peoples rights.

ROC's reply:
First we want to say that we have "shown more than an interest" in standing up for people's rights. Our organization has been fighting the forces of censorship since 1989. We were formed to combat the efforts of Tipper Gore and her PMRC and from then on we have taken on the likes of many a groups like the one you have associated yourself with.

Gilkey:
It is unbelievable how two esteem reporters such as yourselves could get caught-up from reading a very non-factual article from another source, take it for gospel and then go on a campaign against an organization and individuals that you know nothing about. There are so many mis-truths in your report, that I don't even know where to begin,

ROC's reply:
We beg to differ with you on this point sir. CPRC, its message and its agenda is nothing at all new. We've heard and seen it all before from groups such as the Peters Brothers, Frontline Ministries, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, the PMRC and a long list of others. Your's is just another in a long line of "organizations" that has crawled out from under some dark rock with the agenda of imposing your morals on everybody else. We've seen 'em come and go, and CPRC is just another name to be added to our Kooks & Nuts List.

Gilkey:
but I am forwarding you a general response that I have sent out to the few of the people that took you seriously.

ROC's reply:
We will respond to that letter point by point below.

Gilkey:
If you want to know the truth about what happened down in Texas I suggest that you either call the CPRC or myself at (309)764-3607.

ROC's reply:
As for your claim that we based our article on "non-factual" source. The original article we saw about the little gathering in Fort Worth came from Addicted To Noise Music News of the World. We understand that MNOTW did do an interview with Ramon Jacquez. In fact we believe it was done by Chris Nelson. We would stand by anything that MNOTW reported over anything that you might say. Their reputation is impeccable. Our second source for the article came from the Fort Worth Weekly. We spent a large amount of time on the phone talking with a FWW staff reporter who was in attendance at the seminars. The first hand account of events that was shared with us is right on par with the article that appeared in the FWW. Are you sir calling this reporter a liar?

Gilkey:
Looking forward to talking with you...

ROC's reply:
We are willing to give you the opportunity here to clear the air as to what these mistruths are. We would like to receive from you a point-by-point description addressing all the "Non-factual" elements of the article. If it's so full of "mis-truths" like you claim, we want to know what you believe they are. We believe the sources were, and still are, solid. Furthermore, it is our opinion that it is indeed the CPRC that doesn't want the true facts surrounding it's agenda to be known. We would be very interested in obtaining copies of all your material.

Gilkey:
Calm down, Chill-out, Have a nice day.

ROC's reply:
We will not calm down until you renounce your policy decisions for your organization to not include the advisement of hospitalizing music fans in true Nazi fashion; until you publicly state that the U.S. Government has no business being involved in KGB-like tactics for suppressing and monitoring potential dissenters from more mainstream views based on their philosophical, musical, cultural, or lifestyle choices; until you understand that conducting illegal searches on students just for their taste in music is a ridiculous slap in the face to all the Bill of Rights stands for; until you understand that crime prevention CANNOT entail unconstitutional treatment of citizens on your hunch that their philosophy potentially leads to criminal behavior; until you grasp the fact that someone's rebellious philosophy towards the establishment is not the equivalent of actually committing a violent act (as you claimed); until......we could go on for some time along this line.

We will not chill out as long as individuals and organizations like your's are a threat to the basic rights this nation was founded on. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you start to influence and shape public government policy towards something in direct conflict with those rights, that is where you, and especially the government officials that begin adopting your policies, are crossing the line.

Gilkey's response to those that responded to him that he included in what he sent to ROC:

Gilkey:
To concerned citizens,
I would like to thank-you for your comments and your concern. But I also take caution when someone says to me "I heard" because believe it or not journalist may not always get the story straight.

ROC's reply:
Well, here is your chance to get the story straight.

Gilkey:
As you are, I am also very concerned about infringing on the civil liberties of individuals.

ROC's reply:
The standard opening line of all would-be censors. As soon as someone of your mindset starts with anything like the words "Now I am not for censorship...." it is amazing how that line is always followed with the word "....but....." and some gestapo type solution for achieving the very censorship you just renounced at the beginning of the statement, and drawing the line at what you personally deem to be morally fit for our nation's citizens.

Gilkey:
Unfortunately,

ROC's reply:
Yep, here we go (here's the "....but...").....

Gilkey:
there are certain people and influences that preach and speak of doing the very same thing that you and I are concerned about ie. (Marilyn Manson).

ROC's reply:
Let's see---where in the lyrics of Marilyn Manson do you see any lines attacking personal liberties?

Gilkey:
And believe me he isn't the only one. I try to make a point of not singling out a particular group, but particular actions and conduct.

ROC's reply:
So why not advocate that police and school administrators focus their attention on those that are committing violent acts instead of persecuting entire subcultures (where the overwhelming majority of the people are not committing these acts) on your flawed belief that the entertainment they choose *causes* their violent acts? Sounds like, in your policy, you are ignoring particular actions and conduct in favor of unconstitutionally violating the rights of entire subcultures within our society, singling them out in the process. Your words here, sir, are in direct conflict with your stated agenda.

Gilkey:
When you take a look at the senseless murders in Paducah, Ky, Pearl Miss. and others, it would be negligent of us not to listen to the voices and the screams when someone yells "Listen to me! I need help!" and we must also take a look at the many factors that leads up to these incidences. And the common factor happens to be Marilyn Manson and or other Death Metal, Black Metal philosophy.

ROC's reply:
Baloney!!!! So are you going to investigate the musical tastes of all murderers on death row, and systematically ferret out every kid in a school that happens to listen to some of the same music that murderers listen to on the false assumption that the music *causes* the violence? If 3 murders were committed by fans of Garth Brooks, would you then include Garth Brooks among your list of musical tastes that must be monitored? Looks to us like you are in opposition to a form of music/philosophy and you will shamelessly exploit any tragedy that occurs to further your own political agenda toward the elimination of said music/philosophy.

Have you ever once stopped to think that unconstitutional, systematic oppression by the establishment such as what you are advocating will only serve to further alienate members of these subcultures, and thus increase the likelihood of them striking out violently? Perhaps it is your treatment of those that differ from your philosphy that leads to any tendency to commit violent acts you are seeing meaning you are confusing cause and effect. Please explain how hospitalizing someone for being opposed to the system is going to bring them to embracing that system. It is our opinion that your desired actions would only serve to make these music fans hate everything you stand for that much more, and serve to strengthen their resolve for standing against you. If it's a cultural civil war you want, bring it on, we're ready.

Gilkey:
As far as the locker searches, here is a quote from a recent publication from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "In public schools the standards for searches are much more permissive. The court also recognized that schools need to maintain security in order to create an environment in which learning can take place." This concern, the court ruled, justifies less stringent standards for searches in schools."

ROC's reply:
We defer to one of the founding fathers of this nation whose opinion is far more important than your own:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin, 1759

We are wholly opposed to absolute, unconstitutional control masquerading as a security issue. You can certainly obtain more security by imposing Marshall Law on society, but is that the kind of world we want to live in? Please stop hiding behind the Public Relations veil of security and safety. Censors used to be for outright censorship of that which they disliked---that failed---so now the strategy is to use PR savvy to redefine the agenda away from "censoring" and toward "protecting the children". Call it what you wish but it is unconstitutional either way.

Gilkey:
Just as you claim that Mr. Brian Warner (Marilyn Manson) has the right to say anything that he wants to, then you also have to allow myself to say anything that I care to say.

ROC's reply:
Agreed that you are fully entitled to your opinions, and to expressing those opinions--and we would assist in defending those rights for you as well if they were called into question by government authorities. However when public officials begin adopting or considering your policies, then we will do everything in our power to organize opposition to everything you stand for. That does not mean we advocate your arrest, or your hospitalization for your beliefs. Nor do we advocate allowing the government into your home to search your belongings for the "threat" you pose to our freedoms. It's called a respect for individual rights, something you obviously do not feel that people are entitled to if they differ from your philosophical beliefs.

Gilkey:
Personally I don't have that much of a problem with the music per se,

ROC's reply:
Here we go again.

Gilkey:
but I do have a problem with the message behind some of the music.

ROC's reply:
We knew it was coming. Please stop insulting our intelligence with statements that you are opposed to violating the rights of citizens and that you don't mind the music you are attacking.

Gilkey:
I also don't think that the music alone is the problem, but when a impressionable youth listens to it over and over again and introduce drugs into the equation, now you may have just brewed up disaster.

ROC's reply:
So you are going to systematically monitor and control all citizens (and yes, students are citizens if you can believe that) on the basis of their musical tastes, going as far as advocating hospitalization of these citizens solely for those same tastes, on the *possibility* that they *may* at some point commit a crime? This is absolutely ludicrous and an absolute insult to the concept of freedom.

Gilkey:
Comparing the music of today as now different than the music of the 60's & 70's is also a bit unrealistic. There use to be a time when people would be talking about the hidden messages and backwashing in the music,

ROC's reply:
Backwashing? We thought that's what you do when you drink a beverage and have some of your saliva go back into the drink after you take your swig. So happy you've corrected us on this one.

Boy, for an "expert" you don't seem to have your terminology straight--it's "backmasking". We've been listening to the spew of conservative, religious organizations for years on the evils of rock and roll music, citing all kinds of ludicrous examples of the message the music is secretly bringing to our children. Now we can add you to the bunch. Even if the message is "bad" in your opinion, that still doesn't give government the right to act on your behalf in an unconstitutional manner like you advocate.

Gilkey:
well nowadays you don't have to play music backwards to try to find out if there is some hidden evil message, you can play it forward and it's straight in your face...

ROC's reply:
Evil in your opinion. There are many that have no problems whatsoever with the anti-establishment philosophy of Marilyn Manson and others like him, and do not consider it evil in any way, shape, or form. Marilyn Manson has millions of fans. Why should the government ignore the opinions of these people in favor of your opinion? Seems awfully arrogant on your part to expect this as evidenced by your statement:

"You have to look where they're coming from. They have a belief system that isn't always straight like it should be."

Who made you arbitor for what belief systems people should embrace, and what makes you get to decide what defines how "it should be"? This is an amazingly arrogant statement sir and one that serves to expose your true intent with your agenda.

Back to the original point, with the political nature of so-called religious groups in our society today, standing in total opposition to them, and mocking them as Marilyn Manson and other acts do, is not an inherently evil thing. To put it in a religious context you can relate to, it is our opinion that groups endorsing theocratic beliefs like the Christian Coaltion, American Family Association, etc are the modern day equivalent of the Pharicees, and to stand solidly against them does not make a person evil. For instance, to tear up a bible onstage when that bible is being used to justify all kinds of unconstitutional political attacks on citizens, is not an inherently evil statement to make. Jesus himself trashed an organized religious establishment in that time (the Pharicees), so are you saying then that he was an evil person as well? Also, we'd be willing to bet that if groups such as these would end their crusade for unconstitutional legislation, you would see far less hostility expressed towards them in various subcultures in our society. Their (and your) lack of respect for the US Constitution is what creates the hostile environment.

So let's get this straight, Mr. Gilkey, from everything we see in your letter here, it is really the rebelliousness that you are opposed to. You can't stand the fact that someone is speaking out against the system, against your religious beliefs, against all that you hold dear, and that his message is popular among millions. So you are going to cook up any strategy you can to weed out this rebelliousness from our society in the grand fashion of all the great anti-rock oppressors from the 1950's. Disguise it as you wish in the cloak of being a safety issue, but the bottom line here is that you are advocating unconstitutional governmental control of our citizens.

Gilkey:
One of the biggest things that places Marilyn Manson in a different category than the rest is that; most other groups sings there songs and goes on with their lives. Mr. Manson has an agenda which he admits to which is to get as many followers to "The Church of Marilyn Manson".

ROC's reply:
I think you are the one that needs to get a grip here. It's called BUILDING A FANBASE!!! Those are the terms to which he might apply to it, but the bottom line is that he is admitting to wanting to build a fanbase, something every artist from Garth Brooks to Yanni would admit to in perhaps different terminology.

Gilkey:
He not only sings his songs but preaches his message,

ROC's reply:
<sarcasm on> Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want to allow a citizen to express his opinions. <sarcasm off>

Gilkey:
and the majority of his messages contradicts a lot of what the ACLU advocates...

ROC's reply:
Please cite specific examples.

Gilkey:
Please try to be objective and open minded when it comes to reading articles (including mine) from a publication, my experience with the media is that they don't always get the facts straight.

ROC's reply:
Again, here's your opportunity to set us straight, point-by-point. We are eager to see your response.

Gilkey:
As an example, the reporter of where you most likely recieved this information, I cannot recall ever interviewing me. I did not indicate that I was presenting this information with a background "emphases on religion". I'm just a messenger...You draw the conclusions.

ROC's reply:
That's what we're doing here. If you show us the error of our ways, we will gladly publish an update on the situation to shed light on the newly received information. However, be aware that we are well-versed in seeing through PR damage control to the heart of the matter.

Gilkey:
I do not advocate to take ones "Civil Liberties" lightly. I agree that a lot of people that are involved in Goth may not be involved in Satanism,

ROC's reply:
Even if they all are, have you ever heard of the concept of religious freedom?

Gilkey:
and I also agree that not all people involved in the Occult and or Satanism are bad, or conduct themselves in criminal behaviors,

ROC's reply:
Our point exactly. You cannot count religious or philosophical beliefs as being probable cause for some future criminal activity to justify the trashing of these citizens rights.

Gilkey:
but you cannot dismiss the fact (along with other things) it can be a gateway to those behaviors.

ROC's reply:
Here you are confusing fact with opinion. It is your opinion that this is the case. We would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Absent any evidence to support your claim that it is fact, we can only conclude that this is simply your opinion.

Also, using this kind of logic, you could pretty much demonize anything you'd want to. For example, you could say that being a Liberal predisposes people towards criminal acts and launch a campaign to root out all vestiges of liberalism in our society for the potential threat it creates, citing examples where liberal minded people committed crimes to justify your policy. Those kids that committed those murders were more than likely of a more liberal political philosophy, so therefore it must be liberal politics that was the "gateway" to their actions, and as such, people embracing liberal politics must be monitored. See how ludicrous this sounds (hopefully you can see that) when put in this context? But what you are advocating is no different from this.

How about abortion clinic bombings? Does the rhetoric of Pro-Life groups similarly act as a "gateway" for individuals to bomb these clinics? If so, do you then similarly advocate the systematic government monitoring of everyone in the Pro-Life movement? the searching of their belongings? the hospitalization of kids leaning in this direction philosophically? If not, then you sir are a complete hypocrite.

Gilkey:
I talk about Life, Reality and Consequences, with everything else aside, we all have the right to Life, the Reality is there are certain individuals that are attempting to destroy the lives of many of our youth through a message of anti-socialism and their own individual agenda, the Reality also is if one wants to take on the persona of the Anti-Christ, Anti-Society, Anti-Family and Anti-Life at the expense of others, then one must take responsibility for the outcome of their actions and face up to the Consequences...

ROC's reply:
More lame Puritan rhetoric. Save it, we've heard it all before. Admit it, this isn't about security or fighting crime, this is about your personal problem with the philosophy of Marilyn Manson, his fans, and fans of other music you've listed. You've pretty much stated as such with your above paragraph. It is not a crime to be Anti-Christ (freedom of religion). It is not a crime to be Anti-Society (with the corruption we see among the establishment so widespread, we'd counter that being against the system is a positive thing). It is not a crime to be "Anti-Family" in the context of how people of your mentality skew the term "family" (and I'd also counter that your advocacy of getting Child Protective Services to investigate parents that allow their children to listen to this music, possibly ending up in the removal of that child from their home, to be far more "Anti-Family" than anything Marilyn Manson has ever said). And can we take your inclusion of Anti-Life in your statement above to indicate that you are also opposed to reproductive choice for women? It is not a crime to be Pro-Choice if that is what you meant by including that.

Gilkey:
Thank-you for your time.

ROC's reply:
That's what we're here for.

Gilkey:
Have a nice day.

ROC's reply:
Maybe we could if people and groups like you would stop waging your assault on our freedoms.

Sincerely,

John Woods/Kenny Moore
Rock Out Censorship

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS PAGE
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Friend's E-mail:


Go Back to homepage



Sponsored internet services provided to Rock Out Censorship by ONLINE POLICY GROUP.
This site and its contents are copyrighted (c) 1998, Rock Out Censorship. All rights reserved.