More censorship discussion...

[deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller)]

  Well, once again we've got a thread going that isn't really appropriate
to the group, and it's looking like it won't die for a while.  At
least it's not on the "personal attack" level (yet...).  I'm going
to continue despite Vickie's suggestion of moving the discussion,
partly because I don't read the group she suggested, partly because
there are multiple threads, partly because censorship and the PMRC
is actually somewhat related to gaffa...partially because I don't
want to :->
  Y'll who aren't interested are, as always, free to hit the 'n' key.
Let's try to keep the word "censorship" in the titles of these
threads, folks, so people can block us out if they want to.
  BTW, if you think I don't regret this thread as much as others do,
you're mistaken.  I've spent several hours so far composing these
posts.  But I really hate to see confused people persist in their
confusion (note I'm talking about myself here as much as others).

Larry writes, in various messages:
(much stuff refuted by Gene, thank you)
> This is where your other argument falls apart - you claim that it's not
> censorship for record stores to not carry artists' music when there is
> not a demand for it to justify its existance on the shelves.  That is true.
> How little demand was there for 2 Live Crew's album?  For other "stickered"
> artists like Guns 'n Roses?
No, I claimed that it wasn't censorship for record stores to not
carry artists' music, based on any criterion they want to use, from
the profit motive to downright prejudice.  If stores that pull labelled
records are doing it because of the profit motive (lost business -
offended customers, bad publicity, etc.) then either they are right
to do so, or they are losing money due to a bad business decision,
and will eventually be outcompeted or will change their policy.  If,
on the other hand, they pull records for their own (im)moral reasons,
then the number sold has nothing do with it, except that once again,
folks - yes, you guessed it - they will be outcompeted if there is
a market for the goods that they don't sell (if there is no market,
you've no right to expect the good to be on shelves anyway).

> I wish you (and Mr. Haller) would read a bit more carefully - I have
> never suggested doing anything about the PMRC except speaking out
> against it, its own misrepresentation of its aims, and its policies.
No, no, no!  You misunderstand me totally.  Perhaps I haven't made
myself clear.  What the PMRC believes or doesn't believe is
*absolutely*, *totally* irrelevant.  If it weren't for two things:
   1. Government contemplating *legislating* their morality
   2. A general attitude in America that morality is a public,
      not a private issue
then there would be no problem.  The PMRC would believe whatever they
wanted, and it would have no effect on me at all.  Problem #1 is that
people like Jesse Helms listen to the PMRC and then try to get
legislation passed which would turn the PMRC's moral code into *law*
(and thus initiate the use of force).  Problem #2 is that store
owners with particular political convictions make choices about
what goods to sell based on their convictions, not on what is
demanded by the market.
  Problem #2 is really only an annoyance, not a real problem, because
if there is demand for a good, it will be supplied, morality be
damned (and legislation can't do very much either) - look at drugs.
For every person who refuses to sell labelled records, there is another
who just can't wait to get all his customers by selling them.
  As for the "small towns with only one store" argument, phooey!
In a small town maybe there isn't a store that carries the brand of
tomato sauce you like, either!  You want the store to operate at a
loss selling you items nobody else buys?  Special order them, move to
a big city, but please, don't tell me this is anyone's problem but
your own.
  People have so little faith in the free market...
  So then, the correct action (IMHO) is to:
  1. Buy what you want to buy.  If it's worth the money to you to
     show your local record store you like labelled records, buy
     more of them.  But I suggest that stating your feelings in
     a letter to the manager would probably be much more effective,
     and much cheaper, and a rather more direct route to express
     your opinion.
  2. If you hear a peep about the government getting involved, either
     write letters, vote, etc. (participation in the system) or try
     to convince your friends that the government is bad (non-
     participation) in an attempt to raise consciousness.

> they are bringing political pressure to bear in the name of
> "public morality"
  To the extent that political (legislative) pressure is used, I agree,
it is censorship, since all government is based on the use of force.
But I don't think the PMRC has succeeded in getting any legislation
passed.  And if they had, it would still be the government, not the
PMRC, that would be guilty of censorship.  As long as there is a
government, it is the nature of the free market that people will
lobby that government to try to get it to act in their interests.
At worst, this is "inciting to violence" or some such thing, not
actual use of violence.

> Maybe I am one of those "conspiracy theorists" your mother warned you
> about.  Perhaps (and I think) not.
  Hah, people say that about me all the time.  People are so
paranoid about being called "conspiracy theorists".  It's a
propaganda term to begin with, it has no real content and is
a smear tactic against people who one has no refutation for.
I wouldn't dream of calling you that.
  BTW, my mother gets called a conspiracy theorist too, I'd bet...

Vickie:
> Jeez, I wish Kate would come out with a new album.
  On this, and much more than I would have guessed, Vickie and
I agree.  But I only just got the box set, so I've got all
those neat b-sides to listen to (I love Reedy River).

> I just wonder what would happen if *all* stores refused to carry labeled
> albums.
As I say above, I think the free market can handle this one.

> I said this? ...the least you can do is quote me directly...
> ...In my first post I *did* say "...that *is* censorship"...
Yes, I never really saw a definitive retraction of that initial
statement, and I may have misinterpreted you in other ways.  I
think we understand each other now, and I apologize for putting
those words in your mouth.

> >  2. Do everything you can to discredit Sen. Jesse Helms
> By this, do you mean "I have an opinion, which is that Jesse Helm's
> opinions are bad.  Since my opinion is more right than his, I would
> like him to stop exercising his right to self-determination and start
> acting according to my opinion."    ?
  Jesse Helms is a man who is doing his best to impose legislation,
and thus the use of force, on me.  Thus he is initiating the use
of force.  This is against the rules, and makes him fair game as
far as I'm concerned.  I picked him instead of Pat Roberson & Co.
for exactly this reason.  They are harmless crackpots, since they
aren't about to use force on me.  Jesse Helms is a very dangerous
man.  Now maybe Pat Robertson & Co try to *use* people like Jesse
Helms to achieve their aims.  But still, Helms is the problem.  If
nobody like him existed, Pat Robertson would have nobody to do
his dirty work for him, and he'd have to apply the force himself
or go take a cold shower.

> >  3. Realize that the NEA is *real* censorship that is happening
> >     today, and write to every political figure you can think of
> >     and tell them so.
> What? Is cutting grants "censorship"? If we say they *must* give
> money to artists like Annie Sprinkle, isn't that the same as saying
> record stores *must* carry labeled albums? This is the problem "grey"
> or "foggy" area that you accused me of talking about re: labels.
No, no.  As above, the distinguishing factor is that the government
is involved.  They took my money (over 50% of it, this is a capitalist
country??!?) from me by force (the threat of jail / fine counts), and
are giving it away to promote art that I don't like, and not giving
it to art that I do like.  Quite apart from their refusal to give
money to Karen Finlay and such, they are by nature a censorship-
oriented organization, since they're using force to change what
is said by whom (altering free speech).  Equivalent to confiscating
printing presses from one group and giving them to another.
  I'm not saying they *must* give money to any one.  I'm saying
they must *not*.  Very different.  One makes no sense, the other does.
  Again, there is no grey area here.  Either someone uses force, or
they don't.  The government does.  The PMRC doesn't.  That's all.
This is sufficient to identify the correct target for all outrage.

> >  4. Don't vote ever again, or at least vote Libertarian
> People who don't vote have no right to complain about their government.
> Why necessarily Libertarian? Do you have a personal agenda in this?
  Well, I consider myself a Libertarian.  I have no more personal
agenda in this point than in any other, however, I don't profit
by it unless the Libertarians win, in which case I'm sure I
*would* profit.  As I said later, I do not in fact vote, so clearly
my telling others how to vote is not really a "personal agenda" in
the sense I think you mean it.
  All political parties except the Libertarians are pro-taxes.  Taxes
are stolen from citizens and spent on goods.  Inasmuch as this may
affect art, it is censorship.  In any case, it is immoral.  This is
why I recommend them as part of the anti-censorship cause.  Perhaps
you're not as radical as me, and believe that the use of force, and
censorship too, are legitimate in some cases.  If so, you are part
of the problem no matter how much you rail about the PMRC.
  As for "no right to complain" I spit in your face.  Take this back
if you want me to ever speak to you nicely again.  I believe that
democracy is immoral, and I believe that voting would compromise
my ethical code.  Is this a good reason to refuse to vote?  If so,
do I now have permission to complain?  Force is used against me on
a daily basis, and I'm told daily that the only way to stop it is
to compromise my ethics (vote).  Am I allowed to complain about *that*?
Please, how about if I told you you had no right to complain because
you *do* vote?  This is more true, IMHO, given the bastards you and
your comrades have voted into office over my protest!  (If this is a
personal attack, you started it, and I'll apologize if you will).

> >  8. Send your child to a private school if you can possibly afford it
> What? Why?
  Oh, only because kids who go through most schools in the public school
system will end up twice as brainwashed and half as educated as the
ones who don't, IMHO (and in my experience too!).  And people who believe
in their government and don't know how to think straight enough to detect
logical fallacies are people who will be used and abused all their lives.
Is this related to censorship?  I think so.

> > Of course, most of these assume one believes in the morality (not
> > to mention the effectiveness) of working within the system (voting, etc.)
> Yes? You have a better way?
> > I, on the other hand, just sit back and laugh like hell.
> Oh, Ok.
  As I explain above, I don't believe in democracy.  The only thing
I do, to be a little more serious, is talk to people, in the hopes
that either I will change my mind, be able to vote with a clear
conscience and participate in democracy, or that they will change
their mind, and be one step closer to changing the world forever -
the day when so many people don't vote that something big happens,
and maybe, just maybe, government ceases to exist because people
don't believe in it any more.  It's a fairy tale, I know (sigh).

Lazlo:

> > I just wonder what would happen if *all* stores refused to carry labeled
> > albums.
> ...more smaller communities where Blockbuster is the only video store...
> ...policy of not stocking unrated, NC-17 and "controversial" movies...
> I don't care about niggling "dictionary definitions" of what censorship is
> -- if a shop responds to political or economic pressure to stop carrying
> something that they would, under ordinary circumstances, carry, I consider
> that a close enough cousin to censorship that the difference isn't worth
> mentioning.  Labeling and ratings codes just help that process along.
  Well, as I've said many times the free market should handle your
problems.  As for the last thing you say: you've just posted a letter
trying to change my mind.  Does it bother you if I equivocate that
with your just having pulled a gun on me and told me to change my
mind, *or else*?  In one case, I can listen to you if I choose, change
my mind if I choose, etc.  In the other case, I can only choose to
be forced to obey, or die.  Political pressure *is* censorship,
so we agree on this.  Economic pressure is *not*.  Do you feel, when
you choose not to shop at a store that has bad service, that you
are censoring in any way?  How about if that store goes out of
business becuase you don't shop there any more?  What if that store
sells art?  Are you now guilty of censorship?  If not, why?
You've just exerted economic pressure on a store.
  The concept of censorship is not just a "niggling dictionary
definition".  It's a concept arrived at by logical thought and
deduction.  Saying you don't care about it makes you completely
irrational - as demonstrated by your illogical statements later in
your post.  If your foundation isn't firmly in "niggling
dictionary definitions" you will never understand anything in
life, and you will be doomed to make a fool of yourself, and be
unhappy even when your dreams come true, because you wished for
the wrong things.  Try thinking, it's much better.
  The distinction between using force and using all other methods
of persuation is fundamental to being able to make any ethical
judgements at all.  With a basis as foggy as yours, you contradict
yourself at every step and don't even realize it.  Take a few courses
in philosophy from a good, non-skeptical school and maybe you'll
learn something.  Or go back and re-read my posts, you'll learn less,
but you might learn something! ;->

  Yow!  That was long, I wonder if anybody is paying any attention.
Well, I'm quite willing to continue to argue about this, so feel
free to refute me, folks.  Just remember the word "censorship" in
the header and maybe we won't get flamed by the others too badly.

-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)
"I built a little empire out of some crazy garbage
 Called the blood of the exploited working class
 But they've overcome their shyness,
 Now they're calling me your highness,
 And a world screams 'Kiss me, Son of God'" - They Might Be Giants