By the way, deadrockstar, that is a great avatar.  Franz Ferdinand and other quality bands deserve to be at the forefront of the music industry.  They blow Snoop Dogg, "Diddy", 50 Cent, The Game, and all of these pathetic so-called "musicians" out of the water.   
Do you feel the same way about Run-DMC, the Beastie Boys, Coolio, OutKast, Grandmaster Flash, Sugar Hill Gang, Biz Markie, Will Smith(aka the Fresh Prince)..and rap-rockers like P.O.D. , Linkin Park, and Rage Against The Machine(Rage's stuff is about real-world problems and people that have really been kicked to the curb, Rage is not gangsta but they are pretty blunt with their wiews)...
I'm 45 years old...and I remember when people thought Alice Cooper was evil incarnate....I was thirteen years old and a huge Alice Cooper fan back in the day.....I was not allowed to go to the concerts because my foster parents MISTAKENLY thought he hacked up babies and threw pigs' entrails at the audience....

I don't think EVERY kid who listens to 'gangsta' rap is violent. Just as Alice Cooper did not turn me into an ax-murderer. It's the parents and other adults who sometimes look the other way when their kids are troubled. It's called IN DENIAL.

Masterfully stated, Harmonica.  I am in no way supporting the abolition of free speech or our freedoms in general.  I'm focused on eradicating filth and thug corruption.  Babies are crying right now in the inner city as a result of the effects of gang violence.  Our streets are not safe from this diabolical filth. 

I feel obligated to commend the amazing comedian and concerned citizen Bill Cosby.  His statements regarding the irresponsibility propagated by thug culture are a step in the right direction.  This nation needs more sensible citizens like Mr. Cosby. 

Mr. Cosby is just another condescending pr*ck who has turned into a mouthpiece for the Right.  He ranks on the victims of corporate-controlled government's economic policies and doesn't even attempt to address the underlying issues.  Cosby is insufferable.

Mr. Cosby is just another condescending pr*ck who has turned into a mouthpiece for the Right.  He ranks on the victims of corporate-controlled government's economic policies and doesn't even attempt to address the underlying issues.  Cosby is insufferable.
Also Cosby is a pompous, full of himself,right-wing not funny man!

as well as very out of touch with anything going on out there in the real world!

Do you feel the same way about Run-DMC, the Beastie Boys, Coolio, OutKast, Grandmaster Flash, Sugar Hill Gang, Biz Markie, Will Smith(aka the Fresh Prince)..and rap-rockers like P.O.D. , Linkin Park, and Rage Against The Machine(Rage's stuff is about real-world problems and people that have really been kicked to the curb, Rage is not gangsta but they are pretty blunt with their wiews)...
I'm 45 years old...and I remember when people thought Alice Cooper was evil incarnate....I was thirteen years old and a huge Alice Cooper fan back in the day.....I was not allowed to go to the concerts because my foster parents MISTAKENLY thought he hacked up babies and threw pigs' entrails at the audience....

I don't think EVERY kid who listens to 'gangsta' rap is violent. Just as Alice Cooper did not turn me into an ax-murderer. It's the parents and other adults who sometimes look the other way when their kids are troubled. It's called IN DENIAL.
Hey JFK, where are you? I wanna hear more of how you wanna dispatch of the First Amendment!

Do you feel the same way about Run-DMC, the Beastie Boys, Coolio, OutKast, Grandmaster Flash, Sugar Hill Gang, Biz Markie, Will Smith(aka the Fresh Prince)..and rap-rockers like P.O.D. , Linkin Park, and Rage Against The Machine(Rage's stuff is about real-world problems and people that have really been kicked to the curb, Rage is not gangsta but they are pretty blunt with their wiews)...
I'm 45 years old...and I remember when people thought Alice Cooper was evil incarnate....I was thirteen years old and a huge Alice Cooper fan back in the day.....I was not allowed to go to the concerts because my foster parents MISTAKENLY thought he hacked up babies and threw pigs' entrails at the audience....

I don't think EVERY kid who listens to 'gangsta' rap is violent. Just as Alice Cooper did not turn me into an ax-murderer. It's the parents and other adults who sometimes look the other way when their kids are troubled. It's called IN DENIAL.


I have to admit it, I do like some rap music, especially the pre-MTV corruption material.  I'm not criticizing the genre as a whole, I'm criticizing the disarray and social injustices propagated by the lyrics of these songs.  I would appreciate it if no one would accuse me of holding a position that I have not attested to subscribing to within my posts.  I mean what I say, nothing more, nothing less.  


I don't want your compliments because what you are suggesting is much more deeply offensive to me than any silly rap could ever hope to be. Do you hear that word? "Silly". Thats what gangster rap is to me. Its not dangerous; its just dumb. I have no clue what you're trying to say in the last two sentences of the paragraph because of the way that you worded it. Just how do people over in Iraq share my views? We have soldiers over there dying every day, and you have the nerve to compare gangster rap to something like that. MY philosophy sir is that as long as you are not making a tangible threat against someone you can say what you damn well please.


No they envisioned instead in their time a land where women could not vote.  ;) Trying to suggest that you know what they would have thought is ludicrous, JFK. People like you act like if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be politically correct. Now, I noticed in your reply to DanootaAndMe that you said you agreed that some of the Founding Fathers were hypocrites(in my opinion every single one of them were as they believed the freedoms of the constitution only applied to white, land-owning males). I don't see how its logical to use them in an argument like this to back up what you are saying, if you admit that.

The fact is that the 1st ammendment covers all free speech unless that speech is a legally provable threat. If someone were to call someone else and say "I'm gonna blow up your house" thats not protected because a person is being directly threatened. But really besides that(and in certain cases of immediate national security concerns) free speech is not restricted in this country. If that weren't the case, with the way people feel about them, do you honestly think white supermacists(for example) would be able to voice their beliefs?

If your petition's intention was simply to submit it to perhaps the record companies or Viacom as simply the opinion of the undersigned I might support it because I don't like gangster rap or most of the attitudes it promotes either. HOWEVER(and please correct me if I am wrong), the intention of this petition seems to be that gangster rap should actually be banned or at least restricted in-part in an official manner. If the latter is your intention then to me thats no different than Iran's recent ban on all Western music. Its draconian and reactionary and I would die and go to hell before I'd ever sign something like that.

And therein lies my point. I don't agree with much of what they say in gangster rap just like I don't agree with much of what Rush Limbaugh says(if anything lol), but I'd defend both of their right to say it because like Mushroom said, freedom of speech is a two-way street.







Thank you deadrockstar, finally a logical argument against my viewpoint.  What enrages me the most is the spoiling and exploitation of all types of music by major record companies and avaricious corporate executives.  They ridicule the problems faced by millions of destitute inner-city folk.  Also, please don't twist my words to denigrate those who are risking their lives to fight for our nation over in the Middle East.  I deeply admire anyone who is willing to sacrifice themselves to defend our country's ideals.  Yes, freedom of speech is protected by the admirable First Amendment, and I respect that.  However, as Harmonica explained, the clear-cut line of between decency and abhorrent corruption has been crossed, and restrictions do need to be placed on indecency.  If you object to censorship of vulgar music, than why don't you also take offense to nudity being censored on TV?  It seems to me that you are embracing a nonsensical double standard.  

You tell me not to pass judgment on the Founding friggin' Fathers and instruct me to quit pretending to know what they were truly like and what kind of moral standards they would advocate were they alive today, hence your insinuation that every single one of them was hypocrite simply doesn't compute.  Don't categorize someone who has been dead for 200 years in a classification into which you yourself fit perfectly well.        

Hey JFK, where are you? I wanna hear more of how you wanna dispatch of the First Amendment!


I am in no way advocating the eradication of the wonderful First Amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ABSOLUTELY, INDISPUTABLY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

I think that most concerned American citizens would agree that the corruption of our society by greedy corporate executives and the exploitation of the underprivileged has drastically overstayed its welcome.  That is, if all of you are truly concerned about our values and the stability of our society, which I'm seriously beginning to doubt.  Executives wish to entrench our cities further into hopeless privation, and it is up to citizens like you and I to resist this nefarious scheme.  What's more important, the safety of our children or absolute adherence to the First Amendment?  I appreciate the First Amendment and the rights it affords every one of my brethren, but I despise the ruination of our neighborhoods through the exploitation of rap music on TV and radio.  The chairpersons of these corporations know absolutely nothing about the plights of our great nation's lower class.     

Here it is again.  The deification of the forefathers.  What was Jefferson thinking when he,  in his 30's,
raped the teenage Sally Hemings, and held her children in slavery? Spare me the "but he treated then well" bit, they were slaves.  What did Washington think of women when he sold babies away from
their mothers,  husbands away from their wives.  Our forefathers lived in, joined in, and perpetuated, the degradation of women.


and should we as the American people follow in the footsteps of corruptness as Washington and Jefferson Or should we learn from their wrongness and make better of not only ourselves but our society?

Masterfully stated, Harmonica.  I am in no way supporting the abolition of free speech or our freedoms in general.  I'm focused on eradicating filth and thug corruption.  Babies are crying right now in the inner city as a result of the effects of gang violence.  Our streets are not safe from this diabolical filth. 

I feel obligated to commend the amazing comedian and concerned citizen Bill Cosby.  His statements regarding the irresponsibility propagated by thug culture are a step in the right direction.  This nation needs more sensible citizens like Mr. Cosby. 


You name anyone that isn't full boar liberal on this board and you'll hear about their imperfections day in and day out.  Cobsy is by far anything close to perfect, but he does a lot more good than the average Hollywood famo. 

It doesn't- but it does defend the right to speak about it!
 
Oh really? Harmonica seems to be the only one that thinks so.


Harmonica also seems to be the only person on this board that isn't biased with the liberal views of life.

I am in no way advocating the eradication of the wonderful First Amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ABSOLUTELY, INDISPUTABLY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


:o

Is that you Senator Stevens?  ???

Harmonica also seems to be the only person on this board that isn't biased with the liberal views of life.


You should try it sometime, Harmonica. It's fun!  ;)

I refust to take any kind of responsibility for something that happened over 200 years ago.  I refuse to even be responsible for something my father did 50 years ago.

However, I am responsible to how I react to trends that occur today.  I can do nothing about what Thomas Jefferson did, but I can do something about what I do.

How is demonizing our forefathers any different from deifying them?  They are long dead.  Let them stay that way.


There wasn't anything in my post that suggested that anyone should in anyway take responsiblity for
the actions of the forefathers, or your father.  I think you are being a bit defensive in that regard.  I was
just pointing out that the poster called upon the example of the "forefathers"  in regards to the treatment of women.  To use them as  a blanket example is a poor choice.  I did not demonize them, but I did point out that on this subject there are quite a few of them whose treatment of women was exactly the same as the treatment expressed in the songs of these gangsta-rappers.  They are long dead, but they are an important part of our history and they, their words, and their actions, cannot be buried,  for good or ill.

and should we as the American people follow in the footsteps of corruptness as Washington and Jefferson Or should we learn from their wrongness and make better of not only ourselves but our society?


Instead of banning gangsta rap how about using it as a contemporary learning issue?  The kids are
listening to it anyway.  Sit them down in a classroom and talk to the kids about it.  They listen to the
words and have a romantic vision in their minds, but when the attitude is brought out of the romantic
image and verbalized and made concrete by the consequences in their everyday lives it could bring a
whole new awareness of what is actually being espoused.  To show opposition to it with petitions and/
or banning it only makes it much more romantic.

:o

Is that you Senator Stevens?  ???



Heh, who is this Senator Stevens character you are comparing me to? 

I'd presume this Senator Stevens is a Republican.  Look, I consider myself to be a moderate independent.  I take issue with some conservative assertions and some liberal views.  My screen name should tell you who I supported in the last election, but that's a moot point since a year has passed.  The election is irrelevant now.  We should focus on issues that matter now, in 2006. 

This country is filled with people who subscribe to radical liberal views and those who admire radical conservative ideals, without removing themselves from the furor for even a second to realistically analyze what they are saying. 

Instead of banning gangsta rap how about using it as a contemporary learning issue?  The kids are
listening to it anyway.  Sit them down in a classroom and talk to the kids about it.  They listen to the
words and have a romantic vision in their minds, but when the attitude is brought out of the romantic
image and verbalized and made concrete by the consequences in their everyday lives it could bring a
whole new awareness of what is actually being espoused.  To show opposition to it with petitions and/
or banning it only makes it much more romantic.


I'm not exactly sure if "romantic" is the correct wording, but you do make a point.  Not saying your point has any grounds on whether it would work or not but it's a good point in theory.  Alcohol isn't that much of a problem over in Europe because their are not laws against minors drinking. Over here in the United States teens killed in drunk driving incidents as well as teens killed in binging incidents is a huge problem.  One might say that the reason we have so many teens involved in getting drunk weekend in and weekend out is because they are rebelling against authority. They know what they're doing is wrong and sometimes live on that simple thrill alone.  I'm not one to say, hey make Alcohol legal to minors, but I won't shadow myself to the other thought of issue like so many others choose to do.  I just weigh the cons and the pros and decide that making alcohol legal to minors is not the answer.  The problem with the "awareness" is that it isn't going to work on everybody.  The message overall would be that their is nothing wrong with gangsta rap.  Which in moral understanding isn't right.

I'm not exactly sure if "romantic" is the correct wording, but you do make a point.  Not saying your point has any grounds on whether it would work or not but it's a good point in theory.  Alcohol isn't that much of a problem over in Europe because their are not laws against minors drinking. Over here in the United States teens killed in drunk driving incidents as well as teens killed in binging incidents is a huge problem.  One might say that the reason we have so many teens involved in getting drunk weekend in and weekend out is because they are rebelling against authority. They know what they're doing is wrong and sometimes live on that simple thrill alone.  I'm not one to say, hey make Alcohol legal to minors, but I won't shadow myself to the other thought of issue like so many others choose to do.  I just weigh the cons and the pros and decide that making alcohol legal to minors is not the answer.  The problem with the "awareness" is that it isn't going to work on everybody.  The message overall would be that their is nothing wrong with gangsta rap.  Which in moral understanding isn't right.


When I say romantic I mean that their is this vision in the minds of the young that glorifies the lifestyle in an unrealistic way.  That is what the young and inexperienced do, but lessons can be learned.  It was in my lifetime that the "he must love her because he hit her for seeing someone else" was considered acceptable by a large segment of the population( but not in my world, luckily).  Education changed that.  Listening to what the gangstas sing about makes me sick, but the more you tell some 16 year old not to listen, the more they are going to.  So sit down and say "hey, let's talk about what this guy is saying" and and you will see a whole different attitude towards the music, and the kids start going a bit more mainstream.  My sister, until recently, worked with inner city kids and having older kids talk to the younger ones about these attitudes rarely failed.  It is long past the day when parents were able to successfully censor what their children were able to access(if there ever was a time),  Much better to just bring it out in the open, educate, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.  Many a sleepless night there  :(

Also Cosby is a pompous, full of himself,right-wing not funny man!

as well as very out of touch with anything going on out there in the real world!

Thank you, thank you!  It's nice to know somebody else here sees through that man!

And what about the "Founding friggin' Fathers"?
;D

When I say romantic I mean that their is this vision in the minds of the young that glorifies the lifestyle in an unrealistic way.  That is what the young and inexperienced do, but lessons can be learned.  It was in my lifetime that the "he must love her because he hit her for seeing someone else" was considered acceptable by a large segment of the population( but not in my world, luckily).  Education changed that.  Listening to what the gangstas sing about makes me sick, but the more you tell some 16 year old not to listen, the more they are going to.  So sit down and say "hey, let's talk about what this guy is saying" and and you will see a whole different attitude towards the music, and the kids start going a bit more mainstream.  My sister, until recently, worked with inner city kids and having older kids talk to the younger ones about these attitudes rarely failed.  It is long past the day when parents were able to successfully censor what their children were able to access(if there ever was a time),  Much better to just bring it out in the open, educate, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.  Many a sleepless night there  :(


I'll agree with that, especially having older kids teach the younger kids. 

OK, I searched for Stevens and identified him as Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, which also produced wacko disillusioned Don Young and his ridiculous bridge. 

OK, I searched for Stevens and identified him as Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, which also produced wacko disillusioned Don Young and his ridiculous bridge. 


Bingo. Stevens was the old coot they showed the video in the news over and over again of him on the Senate floor talking about his colleagues' attempt to remove the funds for the "Bridge to nowhere" and screamed at them "NO!!!". I was making light of your over the top response.

And JFK, hate to tell ya buddy but you are advocating the restriction of free speech. It doesn't matter what the reasons are(vulgarity, violent lyrics etc.), if you advocate that a certain speech should be illegal or restricted in an official capacity and its not something that is of a legal concern(such as actual threats directed at individuals or certain specific groups) or a matter of immediate national security then you ARE advocating the restriction of constitutionally-accepted speech; no matter what your justification is.

Your comparison of restricting gangster rap to the restriction of nudity on television is not valid. The FCC can only censor material on public airwaves. Why do you think that subscription channels like HBO can air whatever they want? Now, if you think the gangster rap attitude and lyrics should be censored more than they currently are thats one thing(and in that case this needs to be a petition to the FCC); however what you are suggesting(a blanket restriction) is not constitutionally acceptable.

Bingo. Stevens was the old coot they showed the video in the news over and over again of him on the Senate floor talking about his colleagues' attempt to remove the funds for the "Bridge to nowhere" and screamed at them "NO!!!". I was making light of your over the top response.

And JFK, hate to tell ya buddy but you are advocating the restriction of free speech. It doesn't matter what the reasons are(vulgarity, violent lyrics etc.), if you advocate that a certain speech should be illegal or restricted in an official capacity and its not something that is of a legal concern(such as actual threats directed at individuals or certain specific groups) or a matter of immediate national security then you ARE advocating the restriction of constitutionally-accepted speech; no matter what your justification is.

Your comparison of restricting gangster rap to the restriction of nudity on television is not valid. The FCC can only censor material on public airwaves. Why do you think that subscription channels like HBO can air whatever they want? Now, if you think the gangster rap attitude and lyrics should be censored more than they currently are thats one thing(and in that case this needs to be a petition to the FCC); however what you are suggesting(a blanket restriction) is not constitutionally acceptable.

Deadrockstar, I see where you're coming from regarding the blanket ban concept.  However, I was not intending to be "over the top" in my response.  Ya see, when someone accuses me of being "unrealistic", "out of touch with reality", or ridicules my beliefs, I have no option outside of hollering or screaming or otherwise respond in a vigorous yet nonviolent fashion.  Sometimes, no matter how much evidence someone provides in support of their beliefs, people still belittle their ideas. 

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to explain that I fully support our freedom of speech.  In this wonderful nation, we have the right to speak out against politicians without fear of prosecution.  I have complimented our country and the First Amendment numerous times within this topic by referring to them as "wonderful" and "incredible", which should clearly demonstrate the immense admiration I direct toward them.  However, no part of the Constitution should force us to succumb to societal suicide. 

No country (or at least one that isn't anarchial) offers complete freedom for its citizens to participate in whatever actions they please.  Our nation is one of if not the most permissive nation on the face of the planet.  However, we cannot murder, rob banks, or abuse our spouses.  Some regulations are necessary to ensure societal stability and composure.  Perhaps the afterlife will be nonrestrictive, but as long as we are living citizens of this nation, there are rules we must observe and basic standards we must adhere to to prevent our society from disintegrating. 

By the way, I was considering creating another petition regarding the prespammersite, tax-dollar robbing "Bridge to Nowhere" project.  When I do, I will post the link in a new topic. 

Deadrockstar, I see where you're coming from regarding the blanket ban concept.  However, I was not intending to be "over the top" in my response.  Ya see, when someone accuses me of being "unrealistic", "out of touch with reality", or ridicules my beliefs, I have no option outside of hollering or screaming or otherwise respond in a vigorous yet nonviolent fashion.  Sometimes, no matter how much evidence someone provides in support of their beliefs, people still belittle their ideas. 

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to explain that I fully support our freedom of speech.  In this wonderful nation, we have the right to speak out against politicians without fear of prosecution.  I have complimented our country and the First Amendment numerous times within this topic by referring to them as "wonderful" and "incredible", which should clearly demonstrate the immense admiration I direct toward them.  However, no part of the Constitution should force us to succumb to societal suicide. 

No country (or at least one that isn't anarchial) offers complete freedom for its citizens to participate in whatever actions they please.  Our nation is one of if not the most permissive nation on the face of the planet.  However, we cannot murder, rob banks, or abuse our spouses.  Some regulations are necessary to ensure societal stability and composure.  Perhaps the afterlife will be nonrestrictive, but as long as we are living citizens of this nation, there are rules we must observe and basic standards we must adhere to to prevent our society from disintegrating.  

By the way, I was considering creating another petition regarding the prespammersite, tax-dollar robbing "Bridge to Nowhere" project.  When I do, I will post the link in a new topic. 
Some rappers rap about ghetto life, the reality of it, which is not all peace and love...what about those rappers who are speaking out about ghetto life?

Deadrockstar, I see where you're coming from regarding the blanket ban concept.  However, I was not intending to be "over the top" in my response.  Ya see, when someone accuses me of being "unrealistic", "out of touch with reality", or ridicules my beliefs, I have no option outside of hollering or screaming or otherwise respond in a vigorous yet nonviolent fashion.  Sometimes, no matter how much evidence someone provides in support of their beliefs, people still belittle their ideas. 

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to explain that I fully support our freedom of speech.  In this wonderful nation, we have the right to speak out against politicians without fear of prosecution.  I have complimented our country and the First Amendment numerous times within this topic by referring to them as "wonderful" and "incredible", which should clearly demonstrate the immense admiration I direct toward them.  However, no part of the Constitution should force us to succumb to societal suicide. 

No country (or at least one that isn't anarchial) offers complete freedom for its citizens to participate in whatever actions they please.  Our nation is one of if not the most permissive nation on the face of the planet.  However, we cannot murder, rob banks, or abuse our spouses.  Some regulations are necessary to ensure societal stability and composure.  Perhaps the afterlife will be nonrestrictive, but as long as we are living citizens of this nation, there are rules we must observe and basic standards we must adhere to to prevent our society from disintegrating. 

By the way, I was considering creating another petition regarding the prespammersite, tax-dollar robbing "Bridge to Nowhere" project.  When I do, I will post the link in a new topic. 


In your first paragraph it seems you are suggesting that freedom of speech covers political speech in all aspects but it only covers social speech partially. This to me seems like the reverse version of the policy of some dictatorial governments whom allow the media freedom in regards to social content but not political. Giving one but not the other isn't justified in either case, IMO.

I think you have good intentions in your heart but you have been hijacked by the right. This is exactly the type of wedge issue employed by the corporate fascists to distract the American public from issues that actually matter. I know you feel that gangster rap's messages and attitudes are a bad influence. But its just speech. As long as noone is hurt or actually threatened theres no legal justification to ban or restrict it in the way you speak of. In a constitutional republic such as the one we have there is the concept of the rule of law. The foundation for the rule of law in this country is the United States Constitution. No matter how right or wrong you think constitutionally protected speech is its still protected and legal. If we stop using the Constitution as the legal benchmark in this country that you always go back to that is a slippery slope, my friend. Because without it any kind of crazy law could be passed in this country. You think if we start circumventing the Constitution it will stop at the things you think should be restriced or banned? It won't, JFK. As I already said freedom of speech is a two way street and once you veer over into the other person's lane there will be nothing to stop them from veering over into your's.

Like I said; you have brought up some good points about gangster rap. However I just don't feel it's effects are anywhere NEAR harmful enough on this country to take the chance of undermining our Constitution. After all if you feel that Bush cannot ignore the Constitution when it comes to the War on Terror then how in the world do you think its logical to do so in order to censor music?

Another question I'd like to pose to you here: There is a song by The Doors called "The End" and one of the themes in it is incest and the Edipus complex, and near the end of the song Jim Morrison screams loudly, over and over, "F%&* ME BABY". Do you think that this song should be restricted? Or for that matter the NUMEROUS songs from the 60s and 70s that promote or allude to drug use? Should we ban "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" by The Beatles?

Oh, and I think its a little bit of a stretch to include bank robbery with murder and spousal abuse. Actually its a bit more than a stretch. I'd call it ridiculous. Ending a human being's life intentionally and abusing someone who cares for you physically are not the same thing as taking money from an institution. The only time bank robbery would jump up onto that level is if that person were to kill or harm someone in the course of the robbery. Otherwise I'd say even mugging is a step above bank robbery(there is an actual individual victim involved).

In my opinion, "gangsta rap" died like, around '98. Today's rap is mostly danceable garbage, and it's about sex and recreational drug use (like early rock and roll, come to think about it). The true gangsta rap was real, it was about life on the streets, and it was a legitimate art form, no matter how shocking or distasteful. The stuff today that tries to connect itself to that music is nothing but fodder designed to sell records. Any of the first gangsta rappers who were any good, if they're still alive, have sold out (Snoop being a notable example, along with Dre). But even if the stuff is garbage, so what? Like everyone else has pointed out already, it's a messed up society which created this.

This petition is the most giant waste of time, perhaps, in the universe. It's totally worthless. Even if you got 10 Million signatures, is that going to suddenly crush the rap industry? Not as long as there's money to be made.

But let's humour the imagination and say that it worked... So much for the precious "free market." But it's OK to squash an industry if so many minorities are cashing in on bad taste, as long as you can theoretically, hypothetically, possibly, and lest I forget, FALSELY attribute a few social problems to its popularity.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but rap isn't the only garbage you'll find on the radio. Every musical genre showcased on terrestrial radio is dominated by a similar void of talent.

In my opinion, "gangsta rap" died like, around '98. Today's rap is mostly danceable garbage, and it's about sex and recreational drug use (like early rock and roll, come to think about it). The true gangsta rap was real, it was about life on the streets, and it was a legitimate art form, no matter how shocking or distasteful. The stuff today that tries to connect itself to that music is nothing but fodder designed to sell records. Any of the first gangsta rappers who were any good, if they're still alive, have sold out (Snoop being a notable example, along with Dre). But even if the stuff is garbage, so what? Like everyone else has pointed out already, it's a messed up society which created this.

This petition is the most giant waste of time, perhaps, in the universe. It's totally worthless. Even if you got 10 Million signatures, is that going to suddenly crush the rap industry? Not as long as there's money to be made.

But let's humour the imagination and say that it worked... So much for the precious "free market." But it's OK to squash an industry if so many minorities are cashing in on bad taste, as long as you can theoretically, hypothetically, possibly, and lest I forget, FALSELY attribute a few social problems to its popularity.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but rap isn't the only garbage you'll find on the radio. Every musical genre showcased on terrestrial radio is dominated by a similar void of talent.


Not as long as there's money to be made.... you about said it all right their.

Not as long as there's money to be made.... you about said it all right their.


Precisely.  When rap first achieved popularity in the mid- to late- '80s, it was based on social activism and honestly discussing the problems that were occurring in the ghetto without condoning those social maladies.  Sometime during the 1990s, unfortunately, record company executives and their counterparts with MTV and the like realized how much moolah could be made by exploiting the ghetto's issues and marketing music glorifying drug use, prostitution, and gangland murder to suburban white kids.  This scheme is what led to the downfall of quality, inventive rap and the rise of heinous garbage that has suburban white kids all around the country who know nothing about what the ghetto is really like aspiring to be "gangsta'". 

Precisely.  When rap first achieved popularity in the mid- to late- '80s, it was based on social activism and honestly discussing the problems that were occurring in the ghetto without condoning those social maladies.  Sometime during the 1990s, unfortunately, record company executives and their counterparts with MTV and the like realized how much moolah could be made by exploiting the ghetto's issues and marketing music glorifying drug use, prostitution, and gangland murder to suburban white kids.  This scheme is what led to the downfall of quality, inventive rap and the rise of heinous garbage that has suburban white kids all around the country who know nothing about what the ghetto is really like aspiring to be "gangsta'". 


People have to vote with their wallets on this one. But I stress that this has happened with every other marketable genre of music as well. Corporate America has hijacked everything from Punk to Christian, Gospel, Country, Hip Hop, Rap, R&B, etc... and made every genre virtually unlistenable for conscientious music fans.

In your first paragraph it seems you are suggesting that freedom of speech covers political speech in all aspects but it only covers social speech partially. This to me seems like the reverse version of the policy of some dictatorial governments whom allow the media freedom in regards to social content but not political. Giving one but not the other isn't justified in either case, IMO.

I think you have good intentions in your heart but you have been hijacked by the right. This is exactly the type of wedge issue employed by the corporate fascists to distract the American public from issues that actually matter. I know you feel that gangster rap's messages and attitudes are a bad influence. But its just speech. As long as noone is hurt or actually threatened theres no legal justification to ban or restrict it in the way you speak of. In a constitutional republic such as the one we have there is the concept of the rule of law. The foundation for the rule of law in this country is the United States Constitution. No matter how right or wrong you think constitutionally protected speech is its still protected and legal. If we stop using the Constitution as the legal benchmark in this country that you always go back to that is a slippery slope, my friend. Because without it any kind of crazy law could be passed in this country. You think if we start circumventing the Constitution it will stop at the things you think should be restriced or banned? It won't, JFK. As I already said freedom of speech is a two way street and once you veer over into the other person's lane there will be nothing to stop them from veering over into your's.

Like I said; you have brought up some good points about gangster rap. However I just don't feel it's effects are anywhere NEAR harmful enough on this country to take the chance of undermining our Constitution. After all if you feel that Bush cannot ignore the Constitution when it comes to the War on Terror then how in the world do you think its logical to do so in order to censor music?

Another question I'd like to pose to you here: There is a song by The Doors called "The End" and one of the themes in it is incest and the Edipus complex, and near the end of the song Jim Morrison screams loudly, over and over, "F%&* ME BABY". Do you think that this song should be restricted? Or for that matter the NUMEROUS songs from the 60s and 70s that promote or allude to drug use? Should we ban "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" by The Beatles?

Oh, and I think its a little bit of a stretch to include bank robbery with murder and spousal abuse. Actually its a bit more than a stretch. I'd call it ridiculous. Ending a human being's life intentionally and abusing someone who cares for you physically are not the same thing as taking money from an institution. The only time bank robbery would jump up onto that level is if that person were to kill or harm someone in the course of the robbery. Otherwise I'd say even mugging is a step above bank robbery(there is an actual individual victim involved).
What JFK is not considering is from its beginnings, rock music and every kind of music it spawned has been somewhat tasteless and even downright EVIL in the minds of some people..Why do you think Elvis was only shown from the waist up when he did the Ed Sullivan Show..because his pelvic gyrations offended White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America..and WASP's listened to evangelists like Billy Graham and believed it when someone who was a pastor or priest said rock and roll music was the work of Satan...back then anything new that deviated from the morals of the time was threatening to most parents.

As for that loser 50 Cent..why brag about being shot nine times? The next time someone shoots him could be the last time....

HOLY CRAP!

I don't like gangsta rap, nor bling-bling rap, pop rap, or crunk, but come on man, that's silly!
But good luck. :)

What JFK is not considering is from its beginnings, rock music and every kind of music it spawned has been somewhat tasteless and even downright EVIL in the minds of some people..Why do you think Elvis was only shown from the waist up when he did the Ed Sullivan Show..because his pelvic gyrations offended White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America..and WASP's listened to evangelists like Billy Graham and believed it when someone who was a pastor or priest said rock and roll music was the work of Satan...back then anything new that deviated from the morals of the time was threatening to most parents.

As for that loser 50 Cent..why brag about being shot nine times? The next time someone shoots him could be the last time....


and what JFK succeeds in reasoning is that their is a line to be drawn. Bad manors is not chewing gum too often, bad manors is chewing gum obnoxiously loud, with your mouth open and making loud smack noises.  JFK realizes the difference in these things and he takes motivation and most of all the degree to which these "evils" happen to be.  I stand behind him and his effort to end this beyond the line evil.  I realize that there is a vast difference between singing about how a comrade died in Vietnam and singing about how cool it is to pop one into your brotha.  The same way I realize the difference between a woman in a bikini down town and a woman buck naked down town.  One is appropriate, the other is not.

and what JFK succeeds in reasoning is that their is a line to be drawn. Bad manors is not chewing gum too often, bad manors is chewing gum obnoxiously loud, with your mouth open and making loud smack noises. 
Ah, the shame of owing fealty to a bad manor!
:D

Ah, the shame of owing fealty to a bad manor!
:D


Sometimes the crazy see more than the so called sane.  Manly of you to point that out.