The Target Is Rock : Censorship-vs.-responsibility debate gains new momentum as more states examine laws requiring the labeling of ‘offensive’ recordings

Imagine a time when rock ‘n’ roll is a crime--a time when it’s illegal to be in a rock band, to sell a rock record or play one on the radio.

Absurd?

Not according to Lee Ballinger, West Coast editor of Rock and Roll Confidential, an industry newsletter that devotes much of its space to what Ballinger sees as inroads on free speech.

If the censorship battle continues in the direction it has been going, he maintains, rock music--or at least the challenging aspect of it--is destined to become illegal before the 21st Century.

“As bad as things are going lately,” Ballinger said, “I doubt if Prince will even be able to play his song ‘1999’ by the time 1999 rolls around.”

Ballinger isn’t the first to warn that rock ‘n’ roll is under siege. There has been talk of government action to suppress the music ever since Elvis Presley began twisting his hips in the ‘50s, but little of the criticism has led to any sort of censorship.

Still, given the impact of pop music--millions of young people listen daily to the music and spend millions buying the records--parents continue to express concerns about the possible negative influences of rock.

This concern erupted as a national issue in 1985 when Parents Music Resource Center, a Washington-based lobby, called for record companies to put warning stickers on records that could be considered unsuitable for youngsters. The lobby was concerned about music that encouraged violence, drug use and sexual promiscuity. There were also concerns about alleged references to Satan worship on some albums by heavy metal bands.

Opponents in the record industry called the proposal a form of censorship, but the PMRC rejected the charge, insisting that the group was only asking for voluntary compliance. Grudgingly, the major record companies agreed to comply, and the issue soon faded from the national scene.

However, last year, the issue flared up again.

A bill that would require the mandatory labeling of potentially offensive records was introduced in Missouri early in 1989 by State Rep. Jean Dixon. The bill was defeated.

Later in the year a similar bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. This time it passed.

The bill, introduced by State Rep. Ron Gamble, was approved Dec. 13 and is now before the State Senate. Similar bills have been filed in four other states.

The skirmishes in the continuing war are not just being fought on the floors of state legislatures. They are part of a larger debate over the responsibility of musicians and record companies in regard to musical content in areas ranging from sex and drugs to politics and bigotry.

Among recent developments:

* In Georgia, five nationally known artists--including R&B; star Bobby Brown and Kiss leader Gene Simmons--were arrested last year for “suggestive” performances.

* In Alabama, a record store owner was busted for selling a rap cassette to an adult undercover policeman and was convicted of selling obscene material.

* The Federal Communications Commission is aggressively targeting radio stations and fining them for “offensive” programming.

* Several Jewish leaders have accused the New York rap group Public Enemy of anti-Semitism in both media remarks and in a record, “Welcome to the Terrordome.”

* An FBI public affairs officer sent a “policy” letter to Priority Records charging that a song by the Los Angeles rap group N.W.A encourages violence against law enforcement officers.

* Some record industry observers point to “attacks” on pop music as a sign that fundamentalist religious groups have made pop music lyrics a major item on their agenda for social change--an agenda that includes television programming and motion pictures offensive to these groups.

* In Southern California, Focus on the Family (FOF) has actively encouraged parents to monitor their children’s musical intake and to lobby local city councils regarding “restricting entertainment that encourages drug use, sexual promiscuity, suicide and murder.”

The record industry has been slow in reacting to most of this criticism, particularly on the labeling front. But various leaders have taken steps in other areas. Responding to the charges of anti-Semitism and other forms of racial insensitivity and bigotry, CBS Records chief executive Walter Yetnikoff last month sent a memo to more than 7,000 CBS employees asking for a dialogue on what the company’s policy should be in this area. The move was widely applauded by other label chiefs, some of whom said they intend to follow suit.

Nothing, however, has brought the record industry closer together on the issue of “censorship” than the matter of labeling records.

Robert DeMoss of Focus on the Family says his organization has never advocated government interference with regard to stickering and it upsets him when critics portray him as an opponent of free speech.

“If a person in this culture raises their hand and says, ‘I think we’ve got a problem here,’ they are immediately labeled as a censor,” DeMoss said.

Arizona State Sen. Janice Brewer, a Phoenix Republican who introduced a warning-label measure Feb. 5, also rejects the censorship charge. “People (are) yelling censorship, but it’s not censorship,” she said. “My proposal is really pro-information and I’ve always been one who believes that less government is the best government.

“But after researching this issue, I feel there is a need for legislation. The responsibility of what kids listen to will still ultimately rest with the parents.”

But Trish Heimers, vice president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America (RIAA), which represents the nation’s major record companies, vowed to fight the law in court. “Our country was built on very basic human freedoms and there is no place in America for censorship,” she said.

Given the wide range of provocative and rebellious topics explored by such varied artists as Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Prince, David Bowie, Ozzy Osbourne and Guns N’ Roses, it’s hard for most pop observers to make a case that the music’s artistic impulses have been severely limited.

So is this current threat any more likely to lead to a restriction on content?

Harvey Stromberg, KCRW-FM political commentator and Santa Monica College history professor, believes the rock censorship controversy is overblown.

“I know of no case where any court has ever established guidelines regarding the definition of obscenity in relation to recorded music,” Stromberg said. “Even if state legislation ever does get off the ground, the Supreme Court would throw it out as a violation of the First Amendment.”

However, Michael Hudson, western director of the People for the American Way--a nonprofit group that has monitored First Amendment issues since 1980--disagrees. He says censorship aimed at rock music is a legitimate threat--and that it’s only the tip of the iceberg.

“It’s important for rock fans to recognize the connection between rock music censorship and other censorship threats we are currently faced with in America,” Hudson said. “The big picture includes organized threats to sponsorship of television shows, attempts to ban (the movie) ‘The Last Temptation of Christ,’ attacks on the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts). Many of the groups trying to censor rock are the same ones attacking public school curriculum textbooks. It’s a movement.”

If the Pennsylvania measure becomes law, record manufacturers would be required to place a large fluorescent yellow warning label on LPs, tapes, and CDs that contain lyrics descriptive of or advocating “suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, murder, ethnic intimidation and/or the use of illegal drugs or alcohol.” Retailers would be prohibited from selling such “objectionable” records without the warning label and, if found guilty, could be fined up to $300 and sentenced to 90 days in jail. 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.

On Jan. 3, industry representatives from the RIAA, the National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers, the National Music Publishers Assn. and the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences held a summit in Washington to discuss the ramifications of the Pennsylvania bill. NARAS president Mike Greene, who opposes labeling of any kind, says he is stunned at the possibility of the Pennsylvania bill’s Senate passage.

“It is the most unbelievable political irony to have this kind of legislation coming down in the birthplace of American freedom on the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights,” Greene said, after the bill’s House passage. “It’s like something out of an Orwell story.”

Greene says the industry must mobilize quickly in order to win the censorship fight. On Jan. 30, Representatives from the RIAA, NARAS, local retailers and recording studio operators visited Harrisburg, Pa. to lobby members of the Senate Rules and Executive Nomination committee to kill the measure before it reaches the floor.

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said her organization takes the threat of mandatory sticker legislation very seriously and intends to lobbly aggressively against it. The ACLU is prepared to initiate a lawsuit in any state where a rock lyric law is passed, she said.

“Rock ‘n’ roll is an art form just like literature. Nobody would dare suggest labeling classic books which deal with controversial subjects,” Ripston said. “Not only is this kind of legislation unconstitutional, but it also usurps parental responsibility.”

Dan Brenner, a First Amendment scholar and director of the UCLA Communications Law Program, sees voluntary labeling as a private action that cannot be construed to endanger free speech rights. But as state governments become more involved in mandating specific labels, the possibilities of censorship increase, he says.

Brenner says that although the provisions on the Pennsylvania label may be substantial, the sticker does not advocate censorship nor constitute an abridgement of speech.

“I don’t think the Pennsylvania label can be analyzed as a suppression of free speech. It has to be analyzed from the perspective that the effect of the warning is to discourage or chill speech,” Brenner said. “But whenever you establish rules that chill free expression, pressures in the current commercial marketplace tend to make it difficult for controversial voices to be heard.”

But Brenner does find elements of censorship in bills restricting minors’ rights pending in Florida and Missouri.

“Children are citizens and have First Amendment rights. Almost everything listed on these warnings is a protected theme under the Constitution,” Brenner said. “The First Amendment says that there are no bad ideas. If a singer wants to sing about things like excessive violence, they can. It may be a sad fact but even racial hatred is protected free speech in our country.”

The Florida proposal--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 Dec. 10, Missouri Republican State Rep. Jean Dixon introduced a sweeping measure into the Missouri House that not only calls for restraints on the display and mandatory labeling of “offensive” records, but also bars the admittance of anyone under 18 to concerts by artists who sing about those offensive subjects.

The proposal was co-drafted by Shirley Marvin, a registered lobbyist for Phyllis Schlafly’s pro-life organization Eagle Forum and director of the volunteer church group Missouri Project Rock. By the time the Missouri bill (HB-1406) reaches the floor in the House, Dixon intends to have attached an additional amendment which would subject rock videos to the same restrictions.

Dixon told The Times that she has forwarded a copy of her proposal to legislators in 35 states and expects similar legislation to be introduced soon into state houses in Louisiana, Virginia, New Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Alaska, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.

Dixon blamed the record industry for failing to live up to the agreement they entered into with the Parents Music Resource Center to voluntarily label offensive records. According to PMRC figures, only 49 of the estimated 7,500 albums released during the last three years carried warning stickers. The organization maintains that at least 72 more should have carried the stickers.

“Now it’s up to the states to take the ball and run with it,” Dixon said. “It’s our turn to say to the industry, ‘This trash is not coming into our state.’ ”

Similar bills were filed in Maryland by Rep. Judith Toth on Jan. 22 and in Arizona by Sen. Janice Brewer on Feb. 5.

How did the “labeling” controversy get started?

Pennsylvania State Rep. Ron Gamble said his interest in the issue stems from material given him by the Rev. David Morgan, senior pastor of the Full Gospel Church of Carnegie, Pa.

“He’s a member of my church and I supplied him with a copy of the lyrics to a number of popular rock songs,” Morgan said. “These lyrics are so profane they can’t be said on television or printed in a newspaper. I don’t believe records of this type should be allowed to be sold in stores without any restrictions.”

In Southern California, Focus on the Family (FOF) has been the chief activist in the “anti-rock” campaign. Among the artists singled out by the 700-employee Pomona organization: Ice-T, Aerosmith, Kiss, Rigor Mortis, 2 Live Crew and N.W.A.

FOF was founded more than a decade ago by child psychologist, author and radio host Dr. James Dobson, a prominent Christian fundamentalist who gained extensive national attention in 1989 as Ted Bundy’s final confessor. PMRC founder Susan Baker is a member of the group’s board of directors.

According to an FOF vice president, Paul Hetrick, the organization actively encourages parents to monitor their children’s musical intake and to lobby local city councils regarding “restricting entertainment that encourages drug use, sexual promiscuity, suicide and murder.”

The group also publishes a monthly forum called “Citizen” that has featured articles criticizing the music industry and condemning various popular artists. Robert DeMoss, a “youth culture specialist” for FOF who produced a controversial PMRC video found to contain an unauthorized Bruce Springsteen endorsement, wrote a number of the music articles.

Stickering advocates insist that money, not free speech, is the prime motivation in the industry’s resistance to labeling product. In Time magazine, Tipper Gore called record companies “cultural strip miners, profiting from the sex and violence and ignoring the scars.” PTA spokeswoman Tari Marshall says record companies are simply using “censorship” as a buzzword to stir up controversy.

“The music industry is mad because they’re afraid they’re going to lose money,” Marshall said. “They’re just using the First Amendment as a rallying cry to scare people.”

Jim Urie, vice president of marketing at PolyGram records, disagrees. “It’s frightening to me that somebody at the PTA would accuse a music company of hiding behind the First Amendment,” Urie said. “The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow certain freedoms of expression. In our case that’s music. That’s why the amendment exists.”

According to Urie, PolyGram has no beef with voluntary stickering, but the company’s position regarding legislated labeling is another matter.

“Anything that suggests restricting people’s freedom to think is dreadful, because you never know where it’s going to lead,” Urie said. “In this case, we’re talking about a freedom to express something that may or may not be considered tasteful to one particular group. Maybe the next group will not be concerned with sexually explicit lyrics, but with political views.”

Music in Action, a grass-roots coalition whose efforts have been applauded by artists like Springsteen, Don Henley and David Byrne, opposes censorship of any kind. Founded in 1987 by publisher Bob Guccione, Jr., ex-Aerosmith manager David Krebs and former publicist Howard Bloom, MIA insists that the PMRC stickering campaign and the pending Pennsylvania legislation are serious threats to the First Amendment.

Last year, Music in Action collected 50,000 signatures in support of an anti-PMRC petition recently delivered to the Justice Department. East Coast Rock and Roll Confidential editor Dave Marsh threw the weight of his newsletter behind the petition.

This concern over the anti-rock music climate prompted Ballinger, Sandra Choron and Dave Marsh to publish an anti-censorship pamphlet last fall. Titled “You’ve Got a Right to Rock--Don’t Let Them Take It Away,” the brochure outlines an ugly trend of anti-rock incidents and suggests a strategy for fans, artists, record companies and radio stations to challenge artistic censorship. Some of the episodes detailed in the pamphlet do suggest dangers for rock ‘n’ roll activists.

Although record companies maintain that the current mandatory warning label scare will not cause them to restrict the controversial output of rock bands on their labels, some artists are nervous. Living Colour guitarist Vernon Reid believes the current anti-rock climate is a threat to artistic freedom.

“One of the most important things about American society is the free flow of ideas, even ideas that the good parent inside of us may find reprehensible,” Reid said. “In protecting the right of certain ideas to be voiced, abhorrent though they may be, we are protecting our right to respond and attack those ideas in the public forum.”