POPULAR MUSIC UNDER SIEGE

Beginning in the 1980s, religious fundamentalists and

some parents' groups have waged a persistent campaign to

limit the variety of cultural messages available to

American youth by attacking the content of some of the

music industry's creative products. These attacks have

taken numerous forms, including a call by the Parents'

Music Resource Center (PMRC) for the labeling of

recordings whose themes or imagery relate to sexuality,

violence, drug or alcohol use, suicide or the "occult,"

and prosecutions of record companies and storeowners for

producing or selling albums that contain controversial

songs.

After years of pressure from the PMRC and a series of

Senate hearings in 1985, the Recording Industry

Association of America (RIAA) introduced, in 1990, a

uniform labeling system using the logo, "Parental

Advisory - Explicit Lyrics." The RIAA initiated this

system without providing record companies with any

standards, criteria or guidelines for determining what

albums should be labeled. That decision is left

completely up to the companies, which have chosen to

label only selected rock and rap albums and not

recordings of country music, opera or musical comedy

that may also contain controversial material.

Dissatisfied with the RIAA's labels, many would-be

censors have demanded even more limits on the sale of

music with controversial lyrics. As a result,

legislators have introduced bills in more than 20 states

in recent years that would require warning labels far

more detailed than the RIAA's. Some proposed laws would

go beyond mandatory labeling and actually ban the sale

to minors of music deemed to be objectionable.

Until 1992, none of this legislation had passed,

although in 1991 a bill in Louisiana failed by only one

vote. In 1992, however, the state of Washington passed a

law that required storeowners to place "adults only"

labels on recordings a judge had found to be "erotic";

the law also criminalized the sale of any labeled CD or

tape to a person under age 18. Fortunately, the law was

never enforced because a few months after passage a

state court declared it unconstitutional.

Even though Washington's "erotic music" law failed, the

battle over proposals to label or otherwise restrict

certain music sales will probably continue. The groups

and individuals who have been attacking popular music

want to impose their personal moral and political

standards on the rest of us. The American Civil

Liberties Union is working hard to prevent the

achievement of that goal, which would imperil the First

Amendment rights of musicians, and of all Americans, to

create, perform and hear music of our own choosing.

Q: What's wrong with voluntary labeling? Isn't it, like

movie rating, a harmless way to give parents consumer

information that can help them make intelligent choices

for their kids?

A: Even "voluntary" labeling is not harmless. First of

all, a label on an album is no proof whatsoever that the

music inside is in any way harmful or illegal. Yet many

music stores, including some of the largest national

chains, refuse to sell labeled albums to minors, and

some stores refuse to carry them at all out of fear that

the wrath of pressure groups will bring bad publicity

and possible boycotts. Some people argue that an

"explicit lyrics" label, like an "R" movie rating,

actually boosts sales by drawing attention to the

labeled album. This may or may not be true, but we can

say for sure that fans can't buy an album if it's not in

the store.

Labeling is a red flag for would-be censors, who want to

see the content of popular music regulated as much as

possible. Even worse, the RIAA's "Parental Advisory"

label is now used as a model for labeling legislation

that would establish government censorship of record

sales to minors. The RIAA label also has encouraged

pro-"decency" prosecutors to target particular albums

when threatening storeowners with prosecution, usually

in the hope of persuading the storeowners to stop

selling those albums. Is labeling truly helpful to

parents? No. All a label means is that, in somebody's

opinion, some parents might consider the labeled

material unfit for their children. The only way parents

who want to supervise their children's musical

experiences can really learn anything about a tape or CD

is to personally examine the package, which often

includes printed lyrics. Then, they can decide for

themselves whether it's acceptable or not.

Q: What about government labeling or classification of

music lyrics?

A: "Voluntary" labeling is bad enough, but government

labeling would be worse still -- worse for musicians,

for manufacturers, for listeners and for the

Constitution.

The labeling bills proposed to date have offered very

vague standards for determining what albums should be

labeled, making it impossible for artists, record

companies and stores to understand whether or how the

laws apply to them. A New Jersey bill, for example,

would require a "parental advisory" label on lyrics that

discuss "suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism,

rape or involuntary sexual penetration, or which

advocate or encourage murder, ethnic, racial or

religious intimidation, the use of illegal drugs or the

excessive or illegal use of alcohol." That list could

cover everything from the opera, "La Traviata," to the

Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Such vagueness

makes artists and others in the music industry feel that

they must censor themselves to avoid risking criminal

prosecution.

Most important of all, labeling requirements are usually

coupled with restrictions on sales. Therefore, mandatory

labeling laws would bring about unconstitutional

restrictions on the First Amendment right of artists to

express themselves freely, and on their fans' right to

hear what the artists express -- whatever the subject

might be.

Q: What about laws that keep music with antisocial,

misogynistic or violent messages away from minors --

doesn't society have an obligation to protect kids?

A: Courts have ruled that the government does have an

interest in protecting children. As a result, many

states now have "harmful to minors" laws that are

modified versions of adult obscenity laws. These laws

specifically target works that are sexually explicit and

lack serious artistic or other value.

Lyric-labeling legislation, however, doesn't limit

itself to sexual material that lacks value; instead of

being specific, these bills usually target a wide range

of topics regardless of whether the music has value.

Because many of our elected officials disrespect rock

and rap music and its fans, they don't feel it's

necessary to be specific about music that they regard as

an amorphous mass of unsavory images and messages.

For example, the real target of the police groups and

others who sought to ban "Cop Killer," claiming that the

song advocates the murder of police officers, appeared

to be Ice-T's political viewpoint. "Cop Killer" is a

work of musical fiction that depicts violence against

the police as a response to police brutality. It

reflects a radical attitude held by some inner city

residents, who are furious about the police abuse of

authority they feel they have witnessed or experienced.

As a practical matter, it's impossible to know exactly

what message a particular listener takes from "Cop

Killer." But most likely, rather than inciting violence

against the police, as its detractors claim, the rap

provides an outlet for anger and encourages listeners to

think about the issue of police misconduct and the

antagonism it creates.

Q: But what if someone listens to "Cop Killer" and then

murders a police officer? Don't lyrics that deal with

sex, violence, drug use, suicide, etc. cause anti-social

behavior?

A: No direct link between anti-social behavior and

exposure to the content of any form of artistic

expression has ever been scientifically established.

Moreover, scapegoating artistic expression as a cause of

social ills is simplistic. How can serious social

problems like violent crime, racism or suicide be solved

by covering children's ears? If suppressing creative

expression were the way to control anti-social behavior,

where would you stop? The source of inspiration most

frequently cited by criminals has been the Bible.

Singer Ozzy Osbourne was sued three times by parents who

claimed that his "Suicide Solution" made their sons kill

themselves, and the heavy metal band, Judas Priest,

faced a similar lawsuit in 1990. In all of these cases,

the courts rejected the idea that musicians can be held

responsible for the acts of unstable individuals.

Throughout American history, popular music has mirrored

the thoughts and yearnings of young people. Performers

from the Beatles, Bob Dylan and Aretha Franklin to

Arrested Development and Madonna, have often celebrated

change and challenged "the establishment." Clearly, the

real intentions of the would-be music censors is to

impose on all Americans the tastes and values of

political powerbrokers who don't connect with the

experiences and concerns of the young, the alienated and

minorities.

Lyric-labeling, directed almost exclusively at rock and

rap music, impoverishes our culture by muzzling the

voices of that music's primarily young fans. Such

suppression undermines the bedrock of our freedoms, the

First Amendment, and it makes us all less free.