iTunes & Music Videos: Should anti Bush songs ("son of a bush") be left out ?!?!

[M.O.S.T]

Is it going a bit far for a music "video"

So.... yes? no?

[ijerry]

Originally posted by M.O.S.T
Is it going a bit far for a music "video"

So.... yes? no?

Why? Is there a good reason to intentionally leave it out? I don't think any song should be discriminated against for no reason other than it might offend some people, but then there will be no music.

So, no, it should not be left out.

[hmurchison]

It shouldn't be left out if we as a country still stand for Freedom.

[ipodandimac]

anti-bush songs should definitely STAY in iTMS, but if a pro-Bush song comes out, it should be in there too.

[BCompDude]

Originally posted by M.O.S.T
Is it going a bit far for a music "video"

So.... yes? no?

I haven't seen it--or heard it so I can't specifically comment. What does it say/show about Mr. Bush? If it is completely vulgar and grotesque--I can see why they left it out. You can claim "free speech" all you want but its also the freedom of the distributor to not sell a product (song) it does not deem fit for sale.

Is it unfair that Wal*Mart decided to remove some specific magazines from its rack because of sexual content? Not in any way. It is their business and they decided it was not in their clientel's interest to have it shown at their stores.

We can have opinions about whether or not *something* should be sold *somewhere* but the bottom line is it is the establishment's choice, not ours. If I owned Target and didn't want to sell Crest because I didn't like the color--I wouldn't want anyone to tell me why I HAVE to sell it, nor should they be able to.

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
anti-bush songs should definitely STAY in iTMS, but if a pro-Bush song comes out, it should be in there too.

Is John Ashcroft's rendition of "Let the Eagle Soar" available?

In a wider interpretation...

HIstorically would you have supported these 'counter-culture' tunes?

Artists Against Apartheid: Sun City
(banned from Radio in Taiwan in the late 80's due to trade with S.Africa at the time...
political censorship trumped human rights consciousness back then...)

John Lennon: Give Peace a Chance
(FBI watch list for "subversion" sounds familiar in the Gitmo era)

Pete Seeger, Dylan, Joni Mitchell, CCR, CSNY, Lou Reed, The Clash, etc...
these and other groups all could have been said to have lyrically dissed the "Authorities" or the prevailing societal issues of their day with music of conscience to some, but what might have been seen as 'inflammatory politics' by others.

What about songs that are 'adopted' by protesters or remixed to alter their tone? Does the political intent of the original author count somehow?

Who do you suggest decides what gets to the iTMS?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by M.O.S.T
Topic: iTunes & Music Videos: Should anti Bush songs ("son of a bush") be left out ?!?! Our president shouldn't be subject to criticism of this kind. If Apple refuses to take this treasonous material off line, the government should shut down iTMS until they can show some patriotism.

[G_Warren]

Originally posted by BRussell
Our president shouldn't be subject to criticism of this kind. If Apple refuses to take this treasonous material off line, the government should shut down iTMS until they can show some patriotism.

This was a joke right?! :D

[hmurchison]

Originally posted by BRussell
Our president shouldn't be subject to criticism of this kind. If Apple refuses to take this treasonous material off line, the government should shut down iTMS until they can show some patriotism.


Wonderful sarcasm BRussell!! :)

[curiousuburb]

Any music store that sells Milli Vanilli couldn't censor original content with a straight face

:p

[ipodandimac]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
HIstorically would you have supported these 'counter-culture' tunes?

of course. i dont always agree with everything, but i'm not gonna try and stop someone from saying it. If nothing else, they serve as a piece of history to reflect what was going on in the world at that time.

[e1618978]

One of the free songs in iTunes now is called "when the president talks to god". Not only is it a good song, but also funny.

[LiquidR]

http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/comm_law/coming_america/seditouslibel.html

The US was founded on principles for protecting seditious libel, so I say let the song play.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by hmurchison
Wonderful sarcasm BRussell!! :) Sarcasm? :???:

;)

[adam07]

I havn't seen the video, but what it sounds like is just one of those videos expressing political opinion. Stuff like that I think is fine, but there is still always a line that you have to draw. I think a video that is anti-abortion with a bunch of pictures of unborn fetuses would be crossing that line...

[Gene Clean]

NO! Anyone that has a different view than the President, is, simply put, a terrorist. And we all know what we do with them...

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
NO! Anyone that has a different view than the President, is, simply put, a terrorist. And we all know what we do with them...

yea forget about them and spend our time killing random people.

[Amorph]

This is veering rapidly into PoliticalOutsider territory.

Steve has publicly expressed a desire to have every song ever released on iTMS, including back catalogs going as far back as possible. This goal, and the simple facts that disk space is cheap and physical inventory isn't a concern, will probably guide the store's catalog more than anything else.

If you don't like a song for whatever reason, you're always free to vote with your wallet.

[murk]

Anti Bush songs are my favorite genre. Thanks for pointing out some new ones.:smokey:

As for the original poster, just turn your Fox news up real loud and you won't be able to hear me playing Send George Bush a Pretzel (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=14120171&selectedItemId=14120169) :devil:

[TednDi]

Did I just wander into Apple Outsider? Shouldn't this thread be there?

Now, for the Non-Americans or for the Americans among us who may not have learned anything in the Public School System a crash course in the first amendment to the United States Constiution:

Your country may vary:

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_zoom_1.html

First amendment (note first change to the constitution after its ratification by the original 13 colonies of Great Britain)

Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


This applies as written only to the Federal Government extended to the states because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and thus provides the minimum protection for all citizens. This means that any state can by consent of the governed (very important philosophical point) give to its citizens (or residents) more protection.

Now, to answer the very pressing question. Can Apple fail to place on its privately owned and operated web site a song very critical of the government.

The answer is Yes. The government can't do anything about criticism to itself.

Can Apple (a legal corporation (treated as a person under the law) refuse to put something critical or even wildly praising of the government?

Yes. Apple can refuse to place any content that it decides (for whatever reason) that it doesn't like.

Does this suck? Yes. You have the choice to look elsewhere for this content.

The first amendment gives the citizenry the original power to redress the government for injustice. It does not give the right to slander ( telling a falsehood to cause injury to reputation etc.) or libel (printing a falsehood which causes injury to reputation, etc.) or for some classes of speech (as interpreted by the courts in the intervening 200+ years.

Some examples of a class of unprotected speech:

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater - ( when there is no fire)


Finally, to answer your question "Should anti-Bush songs be left out of iTunes

No, even if they are in poor taste. However must apple be prohibited? No. Can they be? No.

Let the market decide. It's the American Way.

I now return you to my normally opinionated posts.

Carry on.....

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
yea forget about them and spend our time killing random people.

First the liberals complain about overpopulation, that the coming population bomb is going to ruin the world. Then you start killing people to solve that problem, and they still complain. They also complain that we arn't doing enough to combat hiv...

You just can never please some people. :)

[Amorph]

OK, we're off to PoliticalOutsider...

[johnrp]

TednDi

Thanks for the very level headed and rational post, very inforative.

j.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by adam07
I havn't seen the video, but what it sounds like is just one of those videos expressing political opinion. Stuff like that I think is fine, but there is still always a line that you have to draw. I think a video that is anti-abortion with a bunch of pictures of unborn fetuses would be crossing that line...

The left may not always be good at winning elections, but they excel at hypocrisy.

[adam07]

No, I wouldn't have reacted differently if it had been a video that supported a rightist opinion.

[giant]

Maybe the wingers should express themselves by boycotting apple and all apple-related sites.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by adam07
No, I wouldn't have reacted differently if it had been a video that supported a rightist opinion.

But if I understand you correctly, you previously said anti-abortion videos should be censored for content. Which makes no sense if you're posting in support of free speech.

[adam07]

No, I gave an example of an anti-abortion video that would be crossing the line, which would be showing pictures of unborn fetuses. An anti-abortion video without content like that would be fine.

[trumptman]

I'm glad Apple is open enough to put songs like The Giant Killer on iTMS.

The Giant Killer (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=4639936&selectedItemId=4639931)

As for the videos, let them show what they want, they can add disclaimers about content if they are concerned.

Nick

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by curiousuburb

Who do you suggest decides what gets to the iTMS?
Apple.

It would be interesting to see the left reaction if Apple decided to pull it.

[tonton]

Nevermind.