Talk:Parents Music Resource Center/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Frank Sinatra

I heard Frank Sinatra testified before Senate (Congress?) that rock and blues music are "lewd" and "immoral". Can anyone confirm or refute this? I don't know if this has anything to do with PMRC tho'. - Joe

In my opinion, ever since popular music was widely available parents and authorities have been convinced that it's immoral. As a teenager and a fan of rap music, this issue is very important to me and I think that we as Americans should pick our battles and instead of trying to censor the arts, we should be focusing on issues like disease, terrorism, poverty, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.148.193 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just a label, I don't understand the comparisons to 1984

I never understood the anti-label side of the debate. It's just a label, and all these musicians gett so self-righteous as though they are living in an Orwell novel. They should try living in an actual police state. We've labelled movies for years, you don't want to take your child to a movie not knowing whether it's kid-safe or porn. I don't see actors getting self-righteous over that state of affairs. The labels are the same thing, I don't think most parents want to be surprised to find that they bought their child the musical equivalent of porn.

Actors did get self righteous about the ridiculous Hays code. The Parental Advisory label is just as stupid - as Paula Hawkins herself said, under oath, "the album covers ... are self-explanatory". Additionally it looks like some dirty deals were done to try to suppress artists' right to free speech. I wonder if this gross prudishness on Tipper's part led to George W Bush's narrow victory over her husband?
I seriously hate these clowns. Listen to Megadeth's "Hook in Mouth"! Davidleeroth 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem wasn't so much the label itself but the future implications. As soon as it was introduced places like Wal-Mart refused to stock any album with a parental advisory sticker, even thought they hadn't had a problem with them before the system was in place. And as mentioned in the article some members of the US government tried to make it a criminal offence to sell stickered albums to kids. Essentially a lot of people (on both sides of the argument) see it as a way of saying theres something inherently wrong with these albums, and I'd think any artist would be offended to hear someone saying that about their work. Danikat 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proponents

It's tough to find proponents for the PMRC; if anyone knows any, please add. -Damaged Again

I agree with you. Everyone gets upset when they see the Parental Advisory label, but no one says anything about movies rated 'R' or 'G'. Also, no one actually pays attention to either labrel. Parents take their children to see 'R' rated movies, and by CDs for their children that have the parental advisory sticker.

It's also difficult to find proponents of labelling obscene books, this is probably censorship of books by government is linked to human rights abuses, and because descriptions of such rights abuses would likely be censored due to the acts that they depict. Primo Levi's works, for example, would probably be marked as R, or receive a parental advisory label, due to the extreme violence he describes in Auschwitz.

maybe off topic, but lots of people get mad about movie ratings. For instance how a movie with heavy violence will get a PG13, and one that uses words like fuck but is a comedy with no violence will get an R, and if there is even a flash of nudity a movie is defaulted to R at best, NC17 at worst.

Blame

why do people always blame rock music? its bad enough blaming music - most people don't just say "oh, *insert name of famous person* sung about shooting his parents so i've gotta do it" most people realise this is wrong. some people however, seem to be brought up with very little - if any - moral standards, and it is this minority (its always a minority) that gets everyone else "tarred with the same brush" as they say. People should learn to blame the true cause - society or themselves - rather than looking for a scapegoat - especially in something they don't understand, such as a genre of music they never have and probably never will listen to.

Selphie 13:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know either Selphie... I can only respond to your questions with the lyrics of this song:
Project2501a 11:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Finished with my woman ’cause she couldn’t help me with my mind
People think I’m insane because I am browning all the time
All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy
Think I’ll lose my mind if I don’t find something to pacify

Can you help me thought you were my friend
Whoah yeah

I need someone to show me the things in life that I can’t find
I can’t see the things that make true happiness, I must be blind

Make a joke and I will sigh and you will laugh and I will cry
Happiness I cannot feel and love to me is so unreal

And so as you hear these words telling you now of my state
I tell you to enjoy life I wish I could but it’s too late
Black Sabbath - Paranoid (album)
Allegedly the last line has often been misinterpreted as "I tell you to end your life" 惑乱 分からん 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

sheep

What I was saying (in a slightly better manner) is that we are not all sheep who feel the need to do as others - it is a small minority (we even have a name for them) - who seem unable to accept the views of others and GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES however "different" other people may be and whatever people say about things.

So Ozzy and a few other bands sing about drugs - it doesn't mean everybody is going to rush out and instantly overdose - because were not all stupid and impressionable!

My concern is that there are people , REAL people who hold positions of authority, who think today’s society is the fault of a particular type of music. I will freely hold my hand up and say I like Ozzy’s music, as well as other 80’s and 90’s rock and metal bands. Members of such bands (or indeed any “famous” person for that matter) may swear, take drugs and at times act violently, but most young individuals know that these people are not saying others should base their behaviour on them and act in a similar manner. It is the minority that think they need to do exactly the same as any given prominent person, whatever that may include. Unfortunately for those such as many of my friends and I (and by the way none of us take drugs!), this means that often we are tarred with the same brush, and no one will listen to anything we have to say.

It is my belief that because of people being so close-minded to things outside of their spectrum that views like this are harboured, whether it is about inconsequential things such as which genus of music may be the cause of a problem to things such as racism, sexism and belief in stereotypical representations.

In most cases it is people of an older generation who assume that because people sing about things they must do it, take part in it, whatever. In that instance I would say to people, look at rap/gangst music - they talk about drugs too, as well as guns (which includes killing and murdering) as well as beating up women, and objectifing women into nothing more than objects to be owned.

Right on. I am a Christian and I listen to everything from Sabbath to Megadeth to dc Talk to Frank Zappa, and I constantly take criticism from people(specifically the older generation) about my tastes in music. If they won't accept my tastes in music and and what the bands sing about then why should I accept what they like? What we need to do is just let it mellow until the last remnants of the PMRC are broken and gone.

Word up, my sister.

I absolutely agree with you (So, where are we going for our first date? :D - Kidding) Seriously, you are absolutely right. What you are not addressing thought, is the reason these people try to restrict my and your freedom. You're looking at the symptoms, but not the cause. I axe you, what's the reason these people try to restrict and label music? (Yeah, i'm trying to make your brain work overtime ;) Take your pick of tunnel-visions from Noam Chomsky, to Freud, to Carl Marx, to Dalai Lama, to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, Robert Anton Wilson and Cosmopolitan or whatever other point of view you come from :D

Hint: It's almost the same reason that people said that The Roots sold out when they produced a rock piece (The Seed V2.0)

o/~ So, I'm rolling down Rodeo with a shotgun, 
these people haven't seen a brown-skin man 
since their grandparents bought one o/~
[[Rage Against Machine]] - Rodeo Drive

Project2501a 15:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Words!

I know what you mean, I'm just verbally retarded today!! One cause is they think people mean whatever they say all the time!! Did you ever hear of a pop group called s club juniors ? they were 11 and 12, and were "singing" about love and romance - just so they would sell their single and album. At the time there were many articles and letters in the newspapers, saying that they were promoting having underage sex etc etc, which was just ridiculous!! It was, however, plainly obvious to myself and many others that someone else had written this song and had written it for the sole purpose of making money. Needless to say, they didn't last very long...........for whatever reason (hmmmmmm.......possibly the oh-so-fickle-townies!!) Selphie 11:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)*

Gorilla Tactics

Sex and violence sells. Why? Shock factor, feedback loop created and supported by conglomerates. two reasons off the top of my head. Why do japanese female teens sell their body? To get cool accessories and cellphones. The people behind that kiddie group you mentioned knew that sex sells. That's why they wrote the lyrics and promoted said band: So, they can grab them in early enough, before they go to college and spend their allowance elsewhere. As Chris Rock said, the money is not in the single hit, the money is in the kickback!

You know what? I have an idea. MichaelMoore-ish idea, but still: I bet ya that none of the PMRC members have really heard any of the songs they have branded as "ADVISORY", let's have a loola palooza festival right outside their houses in New England :)
Base Solo, Take one.. (I haven't played Metallica for a while on my base guitar. no time, pre-occupied being a code monkey.) And while we're at it, these people haven't played any of the video games they so vigilantly try to ban, I propose we have a huge lan party on the hill across their house with a huge projection screen, and we play the games for them! heh

It's quite the coincidence that all those groups have their origins in southern baptist or north-easten protestant groups...

Project2501a 10:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bass

I take bass - although I've been "learning" guitar for longer - I've not had much pazazz for either for a while but I've decided to start really learning bass 1st (mainly cos my bass is special to me) although I can only play one song on it and its a Chili Peppers song!

But we should do summat like that (first need plane fare!!!) cos they're talking about something they don't know!!

Selphie 09:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Blank Media Irrelevant

The following grafs are irrelevant:

There was a blank media tax bill pending in Congress which would levy a tax on cassette tapes as compensation for lost royalties. In the era just before the battles of filesharing and the internet, lobbyists for the recording industry were accepting labeling in return for the enactment of a blank media excise tax to be levied on everyone who purchased blank tapes.
The corporate and Congressional justification for this was allegedly to recoup money that was perhaps to be lost in the age of digital recording where analog "generations of quality" via copying become moot. And the price of blank media would increase exponentially. The RIAA and other industry associations were, as Zappa pointed out "giving away the rights of a third party (the consumer) without their permission." The same corporate welfare arguments found their way into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act legislation.

I have therefore removed them. --DCrazy talk/contrib 14:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Racist

So the PMRC is not racist and the assertion that they are is vandalism? Its seems pretty obvious to me. Hyacinth 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh no, posting unhelpful lines such as "Nobody in the US seems to like black people. Do black people like themselves?" is not useful commentary but mere trolling and vandalism. Reverting that is not a commentary on whether or not the PMRC is racist.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

I've removed Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg. Yes, we're not censored, we're not protected for minors, but we do have some degree of editorial tact and discretion, and I really can't see why it's absolutely necessary we use this image - under fair use! - to illustrate the article. I'm not removing it because it's a picture of four penises - I'm removing it because we don't need a picture of four penises. Please feel free to object. Shimgray | talk | 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not certain that the fair-use policy would allow that picture in the article anyway. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Λυδαcιτγ 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Back when I made the comment, for different reasons, but now because there's already a fair use album cover being used to illustrate the musician's response; using a second is decorative and against WP:Fair use. However, since the picture of Rage makes more of a statement, it would make sense to use it instead of the album. Don't forget that the image description page needs to be updated with the reasoning for using it in this article. Shell babelfish 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather it here than on the RATM page... where I found the pic--Greasysteve13 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we move the picture here if the Parents Music Resource Center article includes some other pictures?--Greasysteve13 03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the picture illustrates quite well the depth of feeling that Rage against the machine have with regards this organisation. Not surprising as in the US having far left views is something that many of the 'establishment' would like to censor. --Wikipediatastic 14:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipediatastic (although I'm not sure being anti-censorship is necessarily far left). It's an excellent piece of media, and now that there are a few pictures in the article it doesn't look too glaring. If the picture is to be used at all, it should be here. Λυδαcιτγ 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the far left and censorship - Stalin wasn't much into free speech! --Wikipediatastic 13:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets vote:--Greasysteve13 05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, pending any objections. Λυδαcιτγ 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I object, it's fair use, and only tangentially related to the subject. 1993 was a long time after 1985. If we end up with a Political statements made at Lollapalooza concerts article we can put it there. Alcuin 05:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem tangential to me, since they were explicitly protesting the PMRC. There is a date gap, true – and that seems like something we want to show, that the PMRC was still inspiring protest from musicians. Λυδαcιτγ 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of the picture (Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg)

    1. Support. Better here than there--Greasysteve13 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Shows the depth of feeling that some feel. --Wikipediatastic 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Strong support. It's notable and relevant. Kasreyn 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    4. Strong support. This is a very powerul and illustrative image ("a picture is worth a thousand words") and absolutely relevant.

we have some image problems as somebody has placed an unrealted picture up. Would somebody mind cleaning that up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.226.25 (talkcontribs)

What unrelated picture are you referring to? Λυδαcιτγ 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some ironies

It's interesting that they didn't go after obscure or pre-1980's records. Swans' Cop and their Young God EP are far more violent than The Flaming Lips' Hit to Death in the Future Head (no offence to Swans... awesome band). And look at all the drugs and sexual innuendo in the Velvet Underground's catalogue (no stab at the VU either). And they're going after Frankenchrist for a grotesque poster! Some sample lyrics from Swans' "Young God":

I wrap your flesh around my flesh Then I love my flesh I love your face All I can do is kill All I can do is kill I love your flesh around me...

Yes, it's unspeakably gruesome. But why not ban it? No one will listen to it! Same with another early song (they ended up doing blues and ambient rock; go figure, it's pretty damn good), "A Screw (Holy Money)", here's one of the two "choruses":

Open your mouth Here's your money! Open your mouth Here's your money!

Now, an extract from a live version of "White Light/White Heat":

Watch that speed freak, Watch that speed freak, Gonna shoot it up ev'ry night of the week!

Or "Sister Ray":

Cecil's got his new piece Cocks it shoots it between 3 and 4 Aims it at the sailor Shoots him down dead on the floor Aw, you shouldn't do that Don't you know you'll stain the carpet Now don't you know you'll stain the carpet. And by the way I got a dollar Oh, no man, I haven't got the time-time Too busy sucking on a ding-dong She's busy sucking on my ding-dong She does it just like Sister Ray said

I'm searching for my mainline I said I couldn't hit it sideways I said I couldn't hit it sideways Just like Sister Ray says

Go Mike and Lou!

Actually, they did go after a few obscure or relatively obscure acts, such as The Mentors (as a result of the band sending its records to Tipper Gore), Serge Gainsbourg (who certainly was not obscure in the Francophone world, but who was quite obscure in the USA), and Black Flag. And they did go after a few pre-1980s acts ; I seem to remember their forcing the removal of "The Velvet Underground and Nico" from public libraries, and they were also upset about an album by the blues singer Sonny Boy Williamson (for language) and (rather bizarrely) the theme song for the 1960s TV show "Mr. Ed" (for alleged satanic backward masking). Somehow, "White Light White Heat" slipped under their radar, but there are more famous pre-1980s albums that would certainly have been rather obvious targets, like certain Rolling Stones albums, as well as works by Alice Cooper, Arthur Brown, Jimi Hendrix, and others.

Freedom of Speech

Rap singer Ice T with his band Body Count have a song called Freedom of Speech they address "some silly bitch named Gore" and state that "The sticker on the record is what makes 'em sell gold". The whole song is about censoring lyrics so I think it is good to put a reference. The lyrics can be found here: [link to copyvio website removed]

Dee Snider fairness

The second paragraph of the Dee Snider section describes his assertion that some Twisted Sister songs had been misinterpreted. The PMRC position for these songs is mentioned, but Dee Snider's rebuttal or opposing position is not mentioned. In the interest of neutrality and fairness, I think another sentence or two should describe Dee Snider's claims.

Parental Guidance/Advisory Stickers

Anyone have a solid reference that the stickers originally were "Parental Guidance"? All the stickers I've seen IRL and online are "Advisory". Didn't see anything in an authoritative source, seems to be a lot of circular quoting. Sparkhead 02:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it. It's in the anti-Tipper site listed in the references section, which is apparently now offline. Here's the link.
The reason you never see such stickers is that the final agreement was on "Parental Advisory" stickers. Λυδαcιτγ 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Since that reference never mentions that the term was changed to "Advisory", I'm simply wondering if they used the wrong terminology, or if it's more circular (mis)quoting. The reports from ftc.gov [1][2] state that the RIAA agreed in August and in November the "Parental Advisory" stickers were unveiled. I can't find a reputable source that states Guidance and considering the ftc.gov site states Advisory I'm going to change it back until someone can provide a reliable link. Sparkhead 00:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the reference to the text in the August notice, but added info in the November notice, including correctiong of the "label at the PMRC's option" portion. The RIAA agreement was that the record companies could label albums at their own discretion. Sparkhead 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should assume the reference is right - it's a quote from a contemporaneous news story in the Washington Post. Isn't it plausible that the wording would change slightly after the Senate hearings? Λυδαcιτγ 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the two descriptions aren't necessarily in conflict. The Tipper site simply notes that the original compromise, before the Senate hearings, was for a slightly different sticker than the one that was finally used. Λυδαcιτγ 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see no conflict, just didn't see a reliable source. I previously missed the phrase in the quoted WP text in your reference, but do see it now. A second hand reference to the WP may not the most reliable of sources, but I'll buy it. *Sparkhead 01:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Disbanded?

"As of 2006 , it looks like the PRMC has been disbanded." Is this true? Λυδαcιτγ 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rage Picture, Again

Although I'm not the one removing it, I can see justification for the removal. In essence, the picture is about RATM, not about the PMRC.

It puts undue weight on Rage's protest. By 1993 any real PMRC battles were long over. There's no picture of Denver, Zappa, or Snider, much bigger players in the controversy. It's more a picture about RATM than about the PMRC. It was moved here by User:Greasysteve13 because he didn't want it on the RATM article, where it still exists. As a possibly irrelevant sidenote, the uploader of the picture seems to be a SPA focused on male nudity, not genuine interest in the PMRC article.

By the way, Audacity, you said "I'll put it back, pending any objections". You had an objection. The Rage Against the Machine|RATM protest is mentioned in the text. The picture isn't core to the article and adds nothing. I could see putting it up for RfC if you simply must have it included. I'm not going to delete it at this time, but since it adds nothing but shock, you can bet it'll be edited out by someone else yet again. *Sparkhead 01:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rage fans will get their pantyhose in a bind arguing that stopping them from doing anything they want is "censorship". Well - they have the freedom to add whatever they want and I have the freedom to remove an image which is detrimental to the balanced article. Censorship doesn't always fall by default to the most offensive party. The image is superfluous - it goes.203.131.167.26 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I didn't realize that there had been such a debate about the picture before I decided to remove it again. If the general consensus is that it should remain you can revert my change.203.131.167.26 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the addition, read the debate above. A straw poll doesn't mean much. *Spark* 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: I would like to be able to do research for school without four penises starring me in the face. But that's just me. 24.34.215.160 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be using a library instead. I highly doubt your teachers would be impressed with you using Wikipedia as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.117.172 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A note to all people disgusted with this image, according to Wikipedia is not censored policy, you have already been warned. Of course when I first came to Wikipedia, I never saw no signs about content. You had to go to a special page that no one except for the Wikipedia users know about. I blurred their genitals, but someone reverted it. I put a black bar on it, but someone reverted it. Today, I reverted my "mistake" cause I know I can't win against Wikipedia, the Indecent Encyclopedia. --Meaneager 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, what a fuss about nothin'! Maybe let him put the image back but erase their dicks. They're too small anyway! ;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.22.212 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rape, teen pregnancy, suicide

The citation for the PMRC's attribution of rape and suicide to rock music is [3]. For pregnancy, see the testimony of Susan Baker herself: [4]. Λυδαcιτγ 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover3299 21910.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Cover3299 21910.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

This article has no hope if everyone sits here and chats about the PMRC. The Discussion page is meant for discussion of article content additions, removals, organization, etc. Stop making Wikipedia.org your forum.

More on the topic, this article is repeating itself annoyingly. The first paragraph of Actions is just a moderately reorganized version of the earlier first paragraph of Background and formation. More importantly, that letter to the RIAA really has nothing to do with the formation of the PMRC anyway. It's a great topic for the "Actions" section, but should either be severely summarized or removed altogether in Background.

- Erd, June 16, 2007


Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Λυδαcιτγ 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the PMRC still active or not? --Born Again 83 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry Miles

Barry Miles' Zappa biography is widely considered to be a poor piece of work. I would not trust anything citing that source, especially statements claiming that John Denver was the most influential speaker at the hearings — he wasn't, despite the claims of a very bad biography and an even worse made-for-TV movie aired on VH1. (Ibaranoff24 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC))


Quick Opinion

I hate these people like the plague. Censoring music is breaking our constitutional rights. Music is entitled to Freedom of Speech, which is what these people wish to squash. Might as well take a piss on the Bill of Rights. And that's my quick opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.245.177 (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to page

Somebody changed the title and all redirects to "A bunch of Skanks on their late periods". I don't know enough about Wikipedia in order to fix the damage. --Darth Borehd (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Levar Burton?

It appears that Levar Burton is in the first picture on the PMRC page, sitting next to Tipper Gore. But besides being mentioned in the picture, there is no mention of him in the article. Why was Levar Burton at the PMRC hearings? And what was his position? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.41.143 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fucking hate sticker!

If the PMRC wasn't we would have a life,and not telling the Congress what we can't or can listen to,but I fucking that warning sticket,I burn those stickers at house,and is that legal cause I do it panicpack121 (UTC)

Why?

I understand the parents point of view,no one wants their children to become a self destructive person. However, i listen to death metal ,black-metal,thrash metal and any other type of rock or metal out there I think turned out all right. For people who don't want their kids to listen to these types of music check out their c.d.s,MP3s,and whatever looks strange. Also, their is christian rock/metal available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIG7117 (talkcontribs) 08:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 

Why?

I understand the parents point of view,no one wants their children to become a self destructive . However, i listen to death metal ,black-metal,thrash metal and any other type of rock or metal out there I think turned out all right. For people who don't want their kids to listen to these types of music check out their c.d.s,MP3s,and whatever looks strange. Also, their is christian rock/metal available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIG7117 (talkcontribs) 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


All I have to say, is F*** PRMC. RATM forever, Primus forever, Disturbed Forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.105.66 (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tool hush screenshot.jpg

The image Image:Tool hush screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Running Commentary throughout article.

I've just come across this article and after reading it a mumber of additional words are appearing after people's & organisations names. For example, the first line of the "Background section: In October 1984, the National Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Big Brother, sent a letter to 30 record labels and to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)...

I've started editing to remove these. Though I agree with some, they shouldn't appear in the article. KMcD (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)