PMRC/Little Light/Homeground inanity

[ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward J. Suranyi)]

I just received my first issue of _Little Light_, the new American
fanzine put out by The American Association of Them Heavy People.  It's
their third issue:  Spring 1991.  And boy, was I shocked!

Do you remember Chris's joke posting about the PMRC's list of Kate's
songs and how filled they were with obscene imagery?  It was posted
here around a year and a half ago.  _Homeground_ thought it was a good
laugh, so they reprinted it.  Then Peter Fitzgerald-Morris (henceforth
PDFM) told Vickie that a previously unknown American fanzine took it
seriously, so they wrote to the PMRC.  Well, _Little Light_ is that
fanzine.  In the new issue, they are really angry about having not
gotten the joke!

In fact, out of the 20 page fanzine, six-and-a-half pages deal with
this issue!  The very first letter is from a person named David Bricker,
Attorney-At-Law, who says:

1) That _Homeground_ libeled the PMRC by attributing statements to them
that they never made, so they
"should be grateful the PMRC isn't suing them right out of business;
this would be very easy for the PMRC to do."

2) That they are "in violation of the legal principle of reply or
self-defense" because they failed to print the PMRC's reply in full.

3) That they libeled the PMRC *again* by saying "Many of its (PMRC's)
supporters are whole hog censors."  Mr. Bricker says that "this would be
easily defended (the first count is airtight)."

4) That they also defamed Kate by publishing "wholly untrue evaluations
of Kate's music," while knowing they were untrue.

He concludes, "I used to think the Homegrounders were interesting, 
humorous people.  Now I think they are pathetic."
 
The editors of the fanzine publish PDFM's letter to the PMRC in full,
as well as his reply article in _Homeground_ #40.  However, in the
latter, they put several (sic)s in for no reason that I can gather.
They make fun of his British spelling "Centre" in the PMRC's name.

After that, they have an article called "Cen-sor-ship Defined",
in which they describe the history of the PMRC and the stickering
campaign.  Some of it isn't too bad, but there are several stupidities
in this article.

I was boiling mad by this time, so I sat down and wrote a letter,
which I'll reprint below in full:

------------------------------------------------------------
					 3550 Pacific Ave. #312
					 Livermore, CA 94550
					 (415) 447-3405
					 April 15, 1991

Dear Sir,
     As a Kate fan of almost ten years standing I was very happy to
hear about another Kate fanzine.  But the discussion of the
PMRC/Homeground "controversy" made me so angry I had to respond.
     First of all, I'd like to explain the true history of this matter.
You quote Peter Fitzgerald-Morris's reply article in Homeground #40.
After making a slur about their British spelling (how on Earth can they 
help but spell words the way they were taught in school?), you quote 
him: "The document actually originated in the US computer network
"Love-Hounds" (sic) . . ."  What's wrong with this, for heaven's sake?
This is in fact what the computer mailing list is called.
     A person who shall remain nameless here posted the original message
to love-hounds about a year and a half ago.  It was quite clearly meant
to be taken as a joke -- hundreds of people saw it on the computer net
and nobody complained.  The Homeground people saw it there, thought it
was pretty funny, so they put it in one of their issues.  Unfortunately,
they left off the signature which subtly hinted that the message was
a joke.  Even so, it's hard to believe anyone would take it seriously.
     (By the way, if anybody has computer access to internet, you can
subscribe to the love-hounds digest be sending electronic mail to 
love-hounds-request@eddie.mit.edu.  Also, the USENET newsgroup 
rec.music.gaffa is equivalent to the love-hounds mailing list.  We practice
no censorship at all.  All views are welcome; the only thing we have in
common is that we like Kate Bush.  There are about fifty regular, and 
several hundred occasional members.  A few of us have met Kate in person.
In Jeff and Bill's [they are the editors -- Ed] welcome letter, they say
that Little Light was the "first [newsletter] (anywhere) to report the
news of Kate's long-awaited second tour."   Well, love-hounds reported
this two days after she made the announcement at the convention.)
     To go on, in "Cen-sor-ship Defined" you say that the fact that "Army
Dreamers" has been removed from BBC playlists during the war shows-up
"Homeground's essential hypocrisy of going after Americans while ignoring
their own, government sponsored 'censorship'."  For heaven's sake, the
last issue of Homeground came out in December, and the war started in
January.  In other words, there hasn't been an issue of Homeground
published since that action of the BBC!  How could there possibly be
a comment about it?
     In the same article, you say "Homeground is spreading the persistent
rumor that MTV wouldn't play "Running Up That Hill" in its original form,"
and you contradict them.  Well, I'd sure be happy if you were right, but
you're the first person I've ever heard say this.  I know they showed 
short clips of the real video as parts of interviews, but I've just 
read over the love-hounds archives from the fall of 1985 and nobody
there said they saw the whole thing on MTV.  Several saw it on other
(mostly local) music video channels.  I find it hard to believe that 
they played it "about one-fourth the time," because somebody would
have said something!  Are you sure it's MTV you're talking about?
     Look, I agree that PDFM's comments about the PMRC do not reflect
complete understanding of the situation.  In fact, I wrote to him about
the similar comments he made about the k. d. lang controversy.
     But come on, people!  How can you get yourselves so worked up over
an obvious joke?
					     Sincerly,

					     Ed Suranyi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Any comments?

Ed
ed@das.llnl.gov