Music Industry Vows to Fight Proposed Warning Label on Records

‘WARNING. May contain explicit lyrics descriptive of or advocating one or more of the following: suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, murder, ethnic intimidation and the illegal use of drugs or alcohol.’

--Wording of Provision in Pennsylvania Bill

“Sell the wrong record, go to prison.”

That’s the message a Pennsylvania state lawmaker wants to send to the record industry--and the reaction is already intense.

Under a bill passed Dec. 13 by the state House of Representatives and now in the hands of the state Senate, Pennsylvania would become the first state in the nation to make it an offense for retailers to sell “objectionable” records without a warning label on them.

If enacted, the provision attached to S.B. 938--a wide-ranging anti-drug measure--would require manufacturers or distributors to place fluorescent yellow warning labels on records.

Retailers found guilty of selling an objectionable record without the sticker would face fines of up to $300 and a possible 90 days in jail. The proposal would apply to material already being stocked and sold, as well as to new releases. The bill does not designate any state committee or individual to determine what is or is not objectionable, leaving the judgment to the courts in specific cases. Related bills are being proposed in other states, including Missouri and Florida.

Opponents in the record industry are declaring the proposed Pennsylvania legislation unconstitutional and vow a court fight if it is passed. S.B. 938 is in the Rules and Executive Nomination Committee, which is due to reconvene Jan. 22.

“Anyone who believes in the First Amendment and truly cares about rock ‘n’ roll should be up in arms,” said Trish Heimers, vice president of public relations for the Recording Industry Assn. of America, which represents the nation’s major record companies. “If you think censorship is an overblown issue, just read the text of this bill.”

Rep. Ron Gamble, a Democrat who spearheaded the warning-sticker legislation in the state House, maintains that the law is necessary because record companies have not lived up to earlier pledges to the Parents Music Resource Center, an industry watchdog, to implement a voluntary labeling policy on controversial recordings.

“Our best statistics showed that less than 50% were complying,” Gamble said. He pointed out that the bill also empowers state authorities to enter civil suits against any distributor of unstickered product, even if the distributor is based in another state.

Gamble said constituents have complained about what they feel are explicit content in albums by such varied artists as Guns N’ Roses, Ozzy Osbourne, Prince, Van Halen, W.A.S.P. and Elton John.

But the Parents Music Resource Center, the most vocal proponent of voluntary warning stickers, has consistently opposed legislation mandating warning stickers and continues to do so in the current case.

PMRC executive director Jennifer Norwood said the Washington-based lobby group supports voluntary stickering with a non-specific warning label.

“We do not support the legislation,” she said in a telephone interview. “We feel that voluntary labeling by the industry is the best way to deal with the problem of explicit lyrics. Although we are not always happy with the level of compliance, there have been indications in recent months that compliance will become standardized.”

While Pennsylvania’s mandatory stickering measure may be the first of its kind to stand a chance of being approved by a state legislature, Heimers said that at least several other states have similar proposals waiting in the wings.

In Florida, a bill introduced by Republican state Rep. Joseph Arnall on Dec. 5 for consideration in April would require similar mandatory labeling on “offensive” records and ban the sale of such product to anyone under 18. A second Florida bill under consideration would restrict the display of any album, book or magazine that graphically depicts any of the same subjects described in the first bill.

On Tuesday, Missouri Republican state Rep. Jean Dixon is expected to introduce a sweeping measure into the Missouri House that not only calls for restraints on the display and mandatory labeling of “offensive” records, but also restricts the admittance of anyone under 18 to concerts promoted by artists who sing about those offensive subjects. Dixon told The Times on Friday that she has forwarded a copy of her proposal to legislators in 35 states and expects similar legislation to be introduced into other state houses soon.

Heimers said similar legislation is about to be introduced in Rhode Island. “What we’re seeing now is the domino effect,” she said. “These bills are frightening erosions of basic American freedoms.”

Asked about the possibility of a court challenge, Rep. Gamble denied that the legislation was an attempt to censor lyrics.

“To go further than labeling, which, personally I would like to do, could get us into trouble with the Constitution,” Gamble said. “But my legal counsel on the committee checked with the Library of Congress, and their opinion renders that labeling records is constitutional. We think it will withstand that test.”

John Mitchell, attorney for the National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers, maintains that the bill is both unconstitutional and encourages parental irresponsibility.

“To suggest that parents should turn over to a manufacturer or the government the responsibility of deciding what their kids should or should not be listening to, that’s not a path I would like to see our country going down,” Mitchell said in a telephone interview from his office in Washington.

“In terms of freedom of speech, it is simply unwarranted to have the government stepping in and requiring a government-sanctioned label.”

Another problem, said Mitchell, is that the label is misleading. Given the scope of the warning, even country-western, opera, Broadway and Tin Pan Alley classics could be subject to stickering.

“This label lists every possible sin you could think of and is drafted in such a way that you really don’t know what you’re being warned against,” Mitchell said. “Such a warning could scare parents away from purchasing a perfectly decent, upstanding, award-winning, best-selling work of art.”

To avoid prosecution, he suggested, record companies might be forced to sticker every item they produce, defeating the effectiveness of the warning label as a viable tool for parental guidance.

Mitch Perliss, director of purchasing for the Southern California-based Music Plus retail chain, says legislation of this caliber could force merchants to stop carrying unstickered product, thus denying consumers access to music they wish to purchase.

“Each community operates under different standards and the problem is that anybody can read anything into a lyric. Who is to say what an artist has in mind when he writes something?” Perliss asked. “Perhaps the artist is being satirical and somebody doesn’t quite understand that. What one person thinks is sexually deviant, another person may not.”

Albert J. Neri, a political writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, described Gamble as “among the most conservative of Democrats you can get in Pennsylvania. His value structure is Republican, but you have to be a Democrat to get elected in Allegheny.”

Gamble introduced a similar warning-sticker proposal in the House earlier in December, but it died in committee. He revived it by eliminating references to “adultery, sodomy and morbid violence” and adding it as an amendment to a widely supported anti-drug measure.

LIVE ACTION: Laurie Anderson will be at the Wiltern Theatre on Feb. 12 and 13. Tickets on sale Monday. . . . On sale now are shows by the Residents, Jan. 27 and 28 at the Japan America Theatre, and a Bob Marley Day concert featuring Black Uhuru, Feb. 4 at the Long Beach Arena. . . . Bad English, Jan. 26 at the Hollywood Palladium, goes on sale Sunday. . . . Motley Crue has added a third date at the Long Beach Arena, Feb. 15 (on sale Sunday) and Joe Satriani has added a second Santa Monica Civic show, Feb. 2.