Is it censorship or is it just good business? You know, down here in Bloody Kansas.

[KillerMuffin]

After all, we are the bible belt, are we not?

http://www.msnbc.com/local/ksnt/50782.asp

Here's the link.

Whattya think?

******


Manson’s latest CD entitled ‘Holy Wood’ hit stores on November 14.
The original cover shows Manson bloody and distorted hanging on a cross. It’s that religious symbolism that some Christians say upsets them. “There are a lot of artists out there that are disgusting and ignorant to Christian matters, “ says Becky Helloran from Topeka.
Some music stores like Circuit City are selling the CD with a black cover over the front covering Manson’s crucified image. But other stores will keep the original design.
“I like Marilyn Manson he grabs listeners attention and controversy never hurts album sales,” says Jason Peters manager of the CD Trading Post. Peters believes customers want the cover that way it was first created.

 

[Silverlily]

Oh for Christ's sakes! Some people need to lighten up a little, it's a picture.

Honestly, the hang-ups some people have.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Samuari]

Its not ignorance-its rudeness. Though I often feel like smacking some Christians over the head-I still wouldn't do that. Respect other people's beliefs enough not to use that image-its not art, just like its not art for me to look up and see someone wearing a t-shirt with Ganesh on it and they aer in the midst of devouring a hamburger. Sorry-you may think the pic is cool, I think its disrespectful, and if he's as intelligent as some claim-he's doing it deliberately.

Of course he's doing it delibertly. Combine the cover with the album title, and you get the picture. I am offended by what he has done, but of course he has the right to do it. I don't have to give my assent by purchasing the thing though, or allowing it in my home. I will not do so.

The issue though is it just good business, or censorship to put an additional cover on the CD and so hide the one that the artist issued it with. If the oringal cover is disposed of then it is censorship. That does not seem to be what is happening here, and by covering it up the business is incuring an additional expence, because it feels that it will sell more that way. sounds like a choice for profit to me.

 

[Laurel]

I saw an interview with Marilyn Manson on MuchMusic this weekend and he was asked his preference as far as the Presidential election goes. His response was something to the effect of this: he voted for Bush because he felt Bush and the Christian Right will push the country further away from freedom and thus cause people to revolt (the old activist approach to politics, yay, snore). So basically, he realizes that a good part of his appeal to young kids is his shock value. If we as a nation actually grew a brain and started focusing on actual CRIMES instead of worrying about album cover art, then what use would Marilyn Manson be to the kids of today? How fun is it to bring home a record like that and have your parents NOT get pissed? So, Kansas, good job! Thanks to you, Marilyn Manson will continue to rake in the cash.

 

[Silverlily]

It has nothing to do with "cool". The cover violates no laws. It is simply Manson's opinion, his take on organized religion. Why is his opinion worth less than someone else's? If you don't like it, don't buy it. As for it being offensive, the world is full of such things. I personally find the color orange offensive, does that give me the right to black out anyone wearing it?

I happen to find another using religion to dictate what the public may see to be the greatest offence of all. Have your beliefs by all means, but do not impose them on me. I don't much care for Marilyn Manson, but it has nothing to do with his choice of cover art.

 

[Countess DeWinter]

Shouldn't it go both ways?

Then why doesn't this libertarian attitude extend to Christians who want to display crosses or other such visual expressions of their faith? Last I heard (any the many times before that) were LOUD cries of separation of church & state...

 

[Bobtoad777]

Allright let me spout of nd really cuase some controversery here.

Everybody knows I am a Christian in fact my nose is often rubed in the fact, but I don't care.

Do I find his album cover objectionable? Yes. Do I think it should be censored? No. Do I think it should be destroyed? No.

Though I am against many things that he is for, I will defend his right to speak his mind, even if it differes with what I believe.

Feel free to bash me.

 

[Mustang Sally]

censorship or good business?

Well, it's a tough call. I guess the point of the black cover is to avoid offending those customers with religious sensibilities. That's nice, respecting the customers, right? On the other hand, if they feel the need to cover it up, maybe they shouldn't be selling it at all. That would send a more powerful statement to Mr. Manson and everyone else.

It's an album cover! Don't get your panties in a bunch. Marilyn thrives on this kind of controversy. Of course he does it deliberately. Shock value is his gig, it's his whole image, and he's found it to be a very lucrative one. Good for him, I say. I dislike most of his music - except Dope Show, that glam rock thing was kinda cool - but he has every right to make it and to put whatever he wants on his album cover.

Sorta related story: Just a couple of weeks ago, Eminem played in Toronto. The day of the concert, mayor Mel Lastman tried to prevent it, going as far as to suggest the band should be stopped at the Canadian border. Why? because his lyrics explicity describe abuse of women and other vile acts. I agree that his music is absolutely disgusting, but apparently a lot people like that kind of thing. How absolutely ridiculous to attempt to prevent his performance.

 

[Lasher]

LMAO....

What kills me is that this act still sells. It's one of the oldest bits in the Rock N Roll bag o'tricks and it's a sure fire money maker.

It's a pretty easy formula... Offend the Christian Right, get free publicity, turn the kids on to your music cause your fightin' with the Man, LOL. BANG! Instant money...

Hell, the music may sound a little different, but Marilyn Manson ain't doing anything that Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, Kiss, Motley Crue etc. haven't already done before him. Christ, all it takes to sell a CD to your average 15 year old boy is a little make up and an upside down cross. Big Woop.

I'm sure everytime another retailer announces they're putting a black cover on the new Marilyn Manson disc he's doing a little happy dance in his accountant's office. THAT's what it's all about. It's got nothing to do with art, or religion, or principles, it's ALL about selling CDs and getting attention.

Looks like it's working.

[Edited by Lasher on 11-20-2000 at 08:58 PM]

 

[Laurel]

Re: Shouldn't it go both ways?

Then why doesn't this libertarian attitude extend to Christians who want to display crosses or other such visual expressions of their faith? Last I heard (any the many times before that) were LOUD cries of separation of church & state...

I can't remember anyone banning Christian artists' CDs because of their album art or content, but maybe I missed something.

 

[naudiz]

Maybe this is why there is a commandment stating "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." If it didn't get worshipped, it wouldn't get desecrated.

The cross (and anything hanging on it) is just a symbol, having no more significance than the individual places upon it. Had Jesus been executed by beheading, I guess the Christian symbol of faith would be a sword or an axe. Point is: if people didn't elevate the symbol of a cross to the level of worship, such images wouldn't be quite so offensive because they wouldn't *mean* anything.

To me, the crucifix represents a rather painful, cruel form of execution practiced by an aggressive culture that, thankfully, no longer dominates the so called civilized world. It isn't the symbol of my faith. The symbol of my faith is the way I live, and the way I treat my fellow human being. Sure, I can't put that on a chain and wear it around my neck for all the world to see, but on the plus side, the only person who can abuse it is myself.

As for blotting out the cover: That's a choice the stores have every right to make. I think the more attention this cover receives, the more free promos for Manson. Money can't buy this kind of successful advertising. Lasher's right: it's a sure fire money maker.

 

[Laurel]

The cross (and anything hanging on it) is just a symbol, having no more significance than the individual places upon it. Had Jesus been executed by beheading, I guess the Christian symbol of faith would be a sword or an axe. Point is: if people didn't elevate the symbol of a cross to the level of worship, such images wouldn't be quite so offensive because they wouldn't *mean* anything.

Like those who support an anti-flag-burning amendment...they're all wrapped up (so to speak) in a symbol, and in the process of trying to "protect" that symbol they trample on the very freedoms that that symbol represents.

 

[Cheyenne]

I'm sure everytime another retailer announces their putting a black cover on the new Marilyn Manson disc he's doing a little happy dance in his accountant's office. THAT's what it's all about.

Hey, how did you know accountants do a happy dance? I thought that was our secret! You're not an accountant, are you, Lasher?

 

[Laurel]

On topic, it's not a free speech issue. Stores are private entities - they don't have to carry anything they don't want to carry. If I titled my new album "Fuck WalMart", Walmart doesn't have to carry it.

 

[Bobtoad777]

Re: Re: Shouldn't it go both ways?

I can't remember anyone banning Christian artists' CDs because of their album art or content, but maybe I missed something.

Oh Oh Oh, I beg to pardon on this statement. Radio Land will not carry Christian artists. Nor will HMO.

Waht the counter girl told me, was that the lyrics were to 'condemning' and 'damning'.

 

[Laurel]

What's Radio Land? What's HMO?

 

[ANiceGuy]

There are always people who want to censor every one else.

In a free society ( do we have one of those?) there will always be those who want to censor everything and tose who want to say/show/write/do everything. As long as we have both balancing each other we will grow, When one or the other becomes too strong we will wither,

 

[Closet Desire]

freedoms

Protesting Manson covers? Boycotting Victoria's Secret? Picketing billboards of two women kissing?

America is a land of such contradiction and "freedom" is such an elusive thing. When I moved to England many of my plans hinged on when and how my wife and I could move back to the US. I expected to feel smothered at the loss of my "freedom". Instead, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm willing to trade the freedom I found here for the moral persecution that seems to run rampant in the US. (I grew up in the Bible belt so I could be a bit biased here...maybe California is different?)

Oh yeah, contradictions...we publish erotica in the US because it's easier and the Constitution grants that freedom of speech and freedom of press. Here it's often a bit tighter and more regulated. At the same time, sex and erotica as well as CD covers, lingerie, and adverts doesn't deserve a second glance. Last year Eva Herzagova was plastered ten feet high on the side of buses wearing a Wonderbra and sporting a caption that read "I can't cook...who cares!" Could you get away with that in Topeka?

It's funny this came up because I've been trying to list the freedoms I've gained and here is the short list:

freedom from religious zealots...the only ones I've seen are the Americans who stand in the High Street trying to "save" the English. They even had the gall to approach a friend of mine who has been a reverend for 40 years and ask if he had accepted Jesus. He replied with real class.

freedom to express our sensuality and erotic sides through dress, literature, and film. If CD-able wants to wear a see-thru lace top with a French brassiere beneath she is admired rather than loathed (and yes, she looks like dynamite on legs).

freedom to be accepted by our friends who don't see writing erotica, attending erotica shows, or owning erotic videos as a conflict with good moral values...my family still doesn't speak to me.

Well, my soapbox is cracking under the weight so I'll step off here. It's a really sensitive nerve for me.

As Paul Harvey used to say..."good day!"

 

[Bobtoad777]

What's Radio Land? What's HMO?

They are chain music stores here in Canada

 

[TN_Vixen]

I personally find the color orange offensive, does that give me the right to black out anyone wearing it?

*gasp!*

(making mental note not to wear my GO TN VOLS orange shirt, orange pants, orange hat and orange shoes around the Kitten)

 

[KillerMuffin]

I titled my new album "Fuck WalMart"

COOOOOOLLLL!!!!!!!! When's it coming out????

Sam? Can we get it at WalMart?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Well.....

The law, as always is - "the law" - as it is written.

But......

Free Speech and Censorship though they can be governed by law, are actually much more than that - they embody the philosophy of Freedom - that of one being Free.

To deviate: As clearly evidenced in Florida the past two weeks. The weakest link on our American System of politics, law and justice (the machine that governs our Freedom) - is the very clarity or interpretation of "the law, as it is written." Hell, it's worse than the many interpretations of the bible.

Our lawyers, big time, most famous lawyers - have essentially ensnared the American public. Because they are trained to analyze, decipher, adopt, dodge and interpret "the written law" to "attempt to do their, or their clients bidding."

So - I'm not a big fan of the "law right" now - I much prefer the philosophy's of freedom and what is right.

And it is "not right" to censor anything. And that is "the law of good/righteous intelligent thinking humans."

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

The color of predjudice......

The color of prejudice - what offends others - and what is actually right.

When it came time for me to make the decision to allow the draft to "take me" or to fight it - many, many ideas crossed my mind. Going to Canada - Sweden - changing my name etc.

But the idea I most preferred and an idea that could be utilized for just about anything else regarding color and prejudice - even today is.......

I was going to shave off all my body hair - absolutely, completely bald. Then in a bath tub of strong Rit Dye - I decided to use the color of the military - green. I would submerse myself - dyeing myself, head to toe - in that deep shade of green.

I would then report as ordered to wherever the draft board wanted me to go.

They would dismiss me.

I would sue them for prejudice. I mean - what the hell might they have against Green People?

I planned to retire on the money. Might still do that to corporate America - one day.

I love to fuck with fucker's.

 

[Earthmuffin]

I am of the opinion that it is more business than censorship there in Kansas. Move slightly over on the belt and find that I can't even PURCHASE said CD (even if I wanted to) that I call censorship.