NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/censorsh/9740

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 3.7 KB | 81 lines

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!geac!amaron!seachg!chrisb
From: [e-mail] (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: Banning the Beatles?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 15:32:06 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]> weinberg@imager (George Weinberg) writes
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Anderson) writes
>>erkamp@janus (Bob Erkamp) writes:
>>: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Blask) writes:

>The song in question is "run for your life" from Rubber soul

>My impression of this song is that it is sung from the point of view of a
>fictional character,  not of the singers (like Paperback Writer).  Anyway,  I
>think this constitutes fair use so...

>Well I'd rather see you dead little girl
>than to be with another man
>so you'd better keep your head little girl
>or I won't know who I am
>
>CHORUS:
>you'd better run for life if you can little girl
>hide your head in the sand little girl
>catch you with another man that's the end
>little girl

I don'T know...  If the station did not want to play the song, certainly
that is their right; we wouldn't force them to play Motley Crue or Wagner
if they didn't want to.  Instead, though, they "banned" the song, and
apparently advertised the fact as a "ban".  I think the salient point here
is differentiating between political correctness, real abuse, and reality.

As we hear from defenders of free speech all the time, "the best way to
kill a stupid idea is to let the person say it in a public forum".  I doubt
that there is any significant portion of society which believes that men
really SHOULD beat women, in fact, I would bet that even those men who DO
beat women do not believe it is right.  We know th Beatles did not advocate
it, and, unless I've been totally misled since the 60s, they wrote the song
as a protest AGAINST men like the narrator in the song.

Now, are we banning a song because it promotes violence against women?  Or
are we banning it because it TALKS about violence against women?  Even
thought the message is the same, that you shouldn't beat women, it is not
phrased in the proper soothing tones, and therefore is not acceptable for
public consumption.  Perhaps it is felt that the song will upset women who
have been beaten, and perhaps it will.   Then again, my wife's mother died
when she was young, and she gets depressed when the talk turns to "Mom,
Mother's Day, Yo' Mama..." (she's not a poor little weak woman, it is just
an unhappy topic for her).  Whould we then take "Mother" out of use,
because it might upset people who have lost their mothers?

Tackling the issue from the standpoint of the banners, they wish to stop
women from beign abused.  It might be better for them if the songs and the
Sunday night Movies continue to show the reality, and what is wrtong with
it.  We've all seen the shows that start with a Good Man and follow as he
is twisted into a Bad Man,  isn't that better than not talking about it at
all?

Not talking about subjects like wife-beating, incest and child abuse is
what kept these things HAPPENING so long.  There may be some increase now,
but I would be more willing to believe that the numbers have not changed a
lot, people are just reporting things now.  (Forty years ago you Just
Didn't Tell People that Daddy Beats You).  If we try real hard to be
reasonable, and not bottle things up inside, then perhaps our grandchildren
will be beaten less often.

Anyone got a REALLY GOOD rebuttal?

Merry Christmas


-chris blask