I know it's been awhile -
for anyone still tuning in, here's the newest installment.
One of the battle cries of
the recording industry against the PMRC was "Censorship!" The
suggestion was that the intent of the PMRC was to somehow censor the material
that the artists were creating. Nothing could be further from the truth. During
my time with the Washington Wives I never once heard anyone suggest that our
efforts were designed to censor anyone's artistic output.
The fact is that the first
amendment guarantees the right to free speech. People are free to express their
political, religious or moral views. That speech may be in words, pictures,
movement, design, etc. In whatever way a citizen desires to express their
opinions, they are protected by the constitution - no matter how repugnant
those ideas may be. There are parameters of course. It's illegal to produce or
distribute child pornography or to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
The public welfare, especially the welfare of those unable to defend themselves
always comes first. (Unless we want to end their lives in the womb. Go figure.)
Did the PMRC want to stop
certain artists from expressing their opinion? No. The issue for all of the
wives came down to one thing: parents should be informed. That's it. Others may
cry censorship and government interference. As I said, I've heard it all, and
anyone who suggests that I or any of these women had less than a 100%
commitment to the 1st amendment is simply wrong. We had one concern. How can
parents have tools to help them in guiding the purchases of their children when
it came to music. Pretty simple. All other motivations ascribed to us were just
political smoke to obscure the real issue: Profit.
Profit was the bottom line
issue. See, the first amendment does protect your right to hold and express
your views but if you want to package those ideas and mass distribute them for
the express purpose of profiting from them, then you have to deal with the
marketplace and it has its own rules. For instance, I'm sure that the
publishers of Playboy would like to see their magazines distributed in major
grocery and drug stores. Many of those
stores choose not to carry the product. That is their right. The first
amendment protects Playboy's right to produce their product but not the right
to distribute that product through any outlet they choose.
There are plenty of starving
artists out there who believe in the integrity of their art and would rather
continue to starve than adapt their material for the market place. You have to
respect that. They understand how it works. The fact is that the recording
industry gets it. If you go into some stores you will find "clean"
versions of CDs that the store will not carry if they have warning stickers. So
much for artist integrity. The artists, producers, and recording companies know
how it works and they compromise for the sake of their profits.
What was the real issue? If
parents knew that their kids were buying sexually explicit material and stopped
them, then it might hurt the profits of the artists and recording companies. If
stores knew that sexually explicit material was on their shelves, then they
might not want to sell it. Bottom line? Profit. THAT was the issue for those
howling censorship. No one, on the PMRC was interested in denying any artist
their 1st amendment rights. What we were questioning was their right to mass
market products to young people without parents having some knowledge of what
their kids were being sold.
I remember being on
Crossfire and Frank Zappa kept saying "it's only words!" Had I been
quicker on my feet I would have said: "Tell it to Hitler Frank. Tell it to Karol Wojtyla who kept telling his fellow
Poles “don't be afraid!” Tell it to the president you so despise who said “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall!' Or tell it to the forefathers
who wrote the Declaration of Independence. I'm sure King George kept telling
the Brits "don't worry, it's only words!"
Only one word mattered.
Only one word still matters.
