From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest)
To: ammf-digest@smoe.org
Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #132
Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org
Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest  Tuesday, July 21 1998  Volume 01 : Number 132



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: greetings from Alberta!                     [dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926)]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1998 01:57:12 GMT
From: dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926)
Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta!

>dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) wrote:



>wahrend@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>> how
>>can one justify doing something that limits someone's freedoms because it
>>MIGHT be of some benefit.  
>
>The same way one can justify building an earthquake-proof building and
>spending MUCH more money than one would spend building one that isn't
>earthquake-proof because there MIGHT be an earthquake.
>

i find that to be an unfair comparison. (once again, here comes my
objective/subjective argument). if you are living in an earthquake prone area,
it is a fact, undisputable and objective, and everything should be done to
protect you from the potential physical harm. on the other hand, what freedom
is, who deserves it, who doesn''t, who should be protected etc., is pure
opinion. it's sad that in this supposedly modern, thinking society we think of
exposure to the world as dangerous and frightening as an earthquake.


>>I could place a sign in your yard that says "this
>>person might offend you" and this could have some benefit to someone because
>>they might avoid you and thereby not be offended but it inhibits other
>>(non-thinking individuals perhaps) from going to the fru-casa because I told
>>them to bewary of you.
>
>And the only thing that would be unconstitutional about it is the
>trespassing. (sp?) 

im not sure of the true definition, but wouldn't that also fall into the
slander field?

 But, back to the original argument.  Susan made
>the point that it's the record label that places the stickers on the
>records.  So if the artist feels that it's censorship for the warning
>stickers to be placed on their record, they're free to go find another
>label, or do the promotion/distribution themselves.  
>

easy to say, but not to do. not that i would really know, but im sure record
and promotion deals are not exactly the easiest things to come by. should an
artist be forced to  make the choice between forced self inflicted censorship
and the inability to create?

>I was talking to Mike at the Burlington show this past Friday, and
>telling him about this thread that's evolved, and he was surprised and
>interested.  He told me that Fruvous expected _all_ of their records
>to have warning stickers on them, they knew it was coming and were
>okay with it, and that he was very surprised to find out that some of
>the Live Noise records did not carry the stickers.  He also made a
>general comment on the stickers, saying that as a father (he has a
>step-daughter, Jacqueline) he likes the idea of them.  So there you
>have it, straight from the parent's (and Frulad's) mouth.
>
>

in my opinion, mike is probably the type of parent who is informed and
connected to his or her children, which is what is needed, not labeling in
place of parenting. anyway, all people, ( mike included), are entitled to their
own opinions, as long as they respect the right of the "opposition" to their
own opinions - not the opinion, per say, but at least the right to have one- :)


- -nora
**************************************************************************
*******
" there's something exciting about the failure of modern technology to create a
real looking fake human."   - john linnell
 
nora cohen (dot0926@aol.com)
****************

------------------------------

End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #132
********************************************