Again, I wonder about violence against other groups such as women, cops etc that is featured in music, obviously predominantly hip-hop (although I look forward to the future Chris Martin solo track 'I Love Fucking Up Pigs With a Knife'). Are tracks that feature violence against women going to be censored too if a powerful female lobbying group gets on the case?

If we're going to ban homophobic lyrics and say that it is dangerous for an MC or rapper to perform these tracks because they influence the general public then how on earth can we allow the British National Party to continue? Surely their platform reaches as many people as Beenieman or Sizzla and their message of hate affects more people? There's something in the way the newspapers that reported this whole affair that reminds me of the old outcry against Snoop Dogg.

I think this is a very good thing. I don't believe in having a blanket for or against position on censorship. You've got to look at the context. As far as I see it this is very welcome - it isn't an official decree handed down from on high, but an agreement by record companies that it is not ultimately in their best interests to release records that promote prejudice and insight people to violence. I can't say fairer than that. Is it really censorship at all in the strict sense?

I would be very happy if this was extended to Eminem as well, though the question does arise whether irony is a legitimate defence. Though i might not agree with 2 Live Crew about killing cops, I have a lot more sympathy with them because they were speaking up against oppression - as I say, you can't make any generalisations.

Call me a pussy, but I refuse to listen to any artist that I consider homophobic, misogynistic or racist - I don't want to be part of it at all. The more people do this, the more we can change attitudes - the more socially aware we are, the better we can make the music market work for everybody. This isn't just racism in terms of "Kill black people", but also hip-hop that wallows in conceited nigga-this, nigga-that race-consciousness. If people start campaigning more on these issues I wouldn't complain.

Ideally, censorship legislation is simply unneccessary - far-right bands, for example, will never get a wide audience or be anything other than a fringe phenomenon because so few people will touch it now. With any luck the consensus on homophobic music will go the same way.

I think extreme far right parties such as the BNP should be covered by a state ban, like many far rigth groups in Germany.

Granted these are all good arguments.

My argument would only include those on the extreme, extreme right. I think the good thing about moderate far right (so to speak) parties such as UKIP is that they actually keep the tories in check, they provide a barrier to the right of the conservatives that they are now unable to cross. I think its interesting how the tory rhetoric on europe has been forced to shift to the left (to a small extent) when faced with UKIP.

I think one of the problems of legitimizing parties such as the BNP, who are holocaust deniers etc... (I think that holocaust denial would probably be a good criteria on which to ban these parties) is that it turns their ideology into something purely electoral, that begins and ends at the ballot box, where as the problem is already "underground" so to speak, with racist and anti semitic attacks and threats taking place on the estates rather than on the campaign trail.

Perhaps some sort of codified constitutional ban on parties that are actually creating problems due to attacks, and due to lies (which the bnp's "figures" on british immigration amount to).

But uh... yeah music...

This is a totally different situation. As I said, this is NOT a ban (i.e. top-down legislation), but a commercial agreement. Its not that these people are being told to shut up or go to jail, its just that their employers have told them they can no longer support their activities. As far as I see it this is an unconditionally good thing.

Of course the music reinforces negative stereotypes - is this not 'influencing people'? Is reinforcing these stereotypes OK? Is it not the stereotypes that spark hate and violence?

Why would this have anything to do with being black? It is far to easy to use "ethnic minority" status as a cover for objectionable points of view. As a lapsed social anthropologist, I can assert with complete confidence that cultural relativism is bullshit. And could anybody reasonably expect Shellac to influence people to kill women? Of course there's no objective difference but you have to use a bit of common sense - it isn't like they're part of a woman-hating music scene.

Jerry Springer the Opera was not advocating violence towards people. The people trying to ban Jerry Springer, or that play recently about violence in a Sikh household have more in common with the homophobes - they were suppressing voices speaking up against the establishment. Both homophobia, religious fundamentalism, and 'race' are faith-based - they are too arbitrary to be subjected to any public reason test. Criticising people for "blasphemy" is no different from homophobes claiming that homosexuality is morally wrong, indeed, condoning it is often seen as blasphemy. Fuck that.

You have to make a distinction between persecuting people for their race, sexuality, religion etc. and having license to criticise the ideas that underlie their beliefs, e.g. I don't hate Christians or advocate their persecution, but I do consider Christianity as a religion to be paradoxical, counterproductive and ultimately harmful. I really hope the current attempt to introduce legislation on encitement to religious hatred takes note of this distinction. The right to blaspheme is a very important one - shouting "Christ's fat cock" isn't going to kill Cliff Richard.

The problem with saying ‘ban the far right’ is that a right wing group can then do exactly the same toward more liberal/’leftist’ attitudes. Check out this article:

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51961sy0jan24,0,5249569.story?coll=dp-news-local-final

“RICHMOND -- The state General Assembly has at least one brain lobe pondering sex.

A flurry of sex-related bills are making their way through various committees. Some are offbeat. Some are serious.


No watching porn videos in your car if other motorists can see, says Sen. Harry Blevins, R-Chesapeake.

No fondling yourself in public, even under your clothes, says Del. Kathy Byron, R-Lynchburg. Stop it with the sex-related clubs in schools, specifically the newly formed Harrison High's Gay and Straight Alliance, says Del. Glenn Weatherholtz, R-Harrisonburg, who wants to ban those clubs.

And pull your pants up, because we really don't need to see your underwear, says Del. Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk.

"If you were going to apply for a job, would you find this appropriate?" Howell said. "I'm just trying to legislate some common sense. It bothers me that my grandchildren have to see people walking around holding their pants up with one hand."

His measure would fine an offender $50. The nasty flick in the car would net a $250 fine, and the inappropriate-self-stimulation measure would be considered indecent exposure, a misdemeanor punishable by jail time.

Weatherholtz says his proposed ban on school sex clubs also is common sense and protests that a school principal would allow such a group to meet on school property.

"If you allow this, someone else will come in and want a heterosexual club or a bestiality club, so where's the cut-off?" he said. "I've had people from both sides of the aisle say they'd support it."

While these types of bills often reflect attempts by lawmakers to improve the quality of life for constituents, it is an election year and the entire House is up for re-election. No lawmaker relishes the thought of obstructing such measures, which are likely to pass swiftly.

"I think that legislators in Virginia tend to legislate from a puritanical base, and it appeals to voters," said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "Put that together and you get sometimes meaningless, yet sometimes harmful, laws that are hardly ever relevant."

The ACLU often opposes such sex-related bills as being either discriminatory or an infringement on personal privacy.

Some of the sex-related bills introduced this session are quite serious. Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, has introduced a bill that would ban the taking of so-called upskirt photos, a practice in which men point a camera up women's skirts and take pictures or videos.

It's a pastime that has boomed in recent years, fueled by the Internet and something that has been a particular problem along Virginia Beach's oceanfront.

That bill was written at the request of a commonwealth's attorney in Chesapeake who was irritated that harassment and other laws weren't adequate to fully prosecute a man who took a camera into a store last year and snapped upskirt photos in broad daylight, Cosgrove said.

"Current laws just weren't enough to get this dirtball," he said.

A serious attempt to modify the state constitution to include a ban on same-sex marriage, a major issue in last year's presidential race, is picking up steam in the General Assembly. Gay marriage is already prohibited in Virginia, but it doesn't have the weight of the state constitution behind it.”




Now to most of us, a ban of flashing the label of your knickers is not a fineable offence but differing opinions may produce different results (don’t you just love the way Weatherholtz slips in the mention of beastiality in a discussion on gay clubs in the above article?). I agree with Chiaroscuro (as usual!) in that pushing anything underground makes it harder to regulate or to be aware of. With this, it is censorship in the sense that a specific lobbying group can apply pressure to a company or industry and get the results they are looking for. My problem with that is that if groups like Outrage! Can do this, how will more powerful lobby groups act in the future and will governments apply rules based on personal ideologies in a similar style? I’m no supporter of racist, homophobic, hateful lyrics, and was actually on the receiving end of a homophobic beating (ie. Gaybashers attacking me… shame I wasn’t gay really) but living in North America has made me far more aware of censorship and the methods employed by lobbying groups. I support this record industry decision but it still worries me a little for future censorship and 'media morality' issues.