NationStates Jolt Archive

The parents of a 13-year-old girl are suing US supermarket giant Wal-Mart over a CD by rock group Evanescence that contains swear words.

"It needs to be removed from the shelves to prevent other children from hearing it," said Mr Skeens of Brownsville.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4088757.stm

Only in America. :rolleyes:

There are idiots in all corners of the world.

Yeah, but when they want to go to court, they all seem to show up in America.

Haha... that made my day :D

I saw that earlier on CNN. Now its not only their kids but everyone else's kids that they want to protect.

I wonder if those parent know that their daughter has heard worse and probably used worse in school.

I heard a phrase once which goes like this:

"If you accidently run over someone in America, go over them again to make sure they are dead. It's cheaper that way!"

Oh bloody. Just ask them to put a sticker up.

Clearly, I need to get ahold of that CD before the twits do.

I hate people like this, they don't really care, but they are trying to cash in. $74000 for hearing a few swear words, give me a fucking break. No what should happen to this guy is that he should be foced into the middle of the town and everyone who wants to should be able to kick him in the junk, for trying to make it more expensive for me to get shit. Fuck him.

Oh bloody. Just ask them to put a sticker up.
Ah, but then they'd have to remove it from the shelves, because Wal Mart refuses to stock anything with Parental Advisory stickers. :p

Ah, but then they'd have to remove it from the shelves, because Wal Mart refuses to stock anything with Parental Advisory stickers. :p

See, I'm confused... because all the Wal-Marts near me carry crappy... sorry "edited" versions of albums anyway... you have to go elsewhere if you want to buy an 'un-edited' version.

Is that not a World-Wide (as in America) phenomenon, for Wal-Mart, then?

No what should happen to this guy is that he should be foced into the middle of the town and everyone who wants to should be able to kick him in the junk, for trying to make it more expensive for me to get shit. Fuck him.
Well, that girl is in for a baaad year at school. :D

And now I'm waiting for Gone With the Wind to cause renewed controversy, from the use of the word "damn".

Well, that girl is in for a baaad year at school. :D

And now I'm waiting for Gone With the Wind to cause renewed controversy, from the use of the word "damn".

ya i really kida feel bad for her. Its not her fault that her parents are total retards.

evanescence should be banned just for being evanescence

I'll go you one better. According to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56539-2004Dec10.html) in the Washington Post, the FCC is asking NBC for tapes of the opening ceremonies from the Olympics last year because of one or more complaints. Ironically, the story notes, NBC won an award the night before for that very broadcast--it was named the most family-friendly special broadcast of the year by the Family Friendly Programming Forum.

I swear, if this keeps up, the only thing left on television will be Bible story hour and the Propaganda of the Day brought to you by the 700 Club.

Yes but anytime people talk about toughening up the requirements to be able to bring a suit to court... the trial lawyers start screaming, then minority party starts yelling and the nothing gets done.

When a company that makes live saving and life improving drugs, fund a very expensive multi-centered placebo controlled double blind study to see if a very popular anti-inflammatory paint reliever can also be used to fight malignant tumors because of its anti-angiogenesis properties then end up getting pelted with lawsuits. Why?

Because during the course of the study the found that CHD (coronary heart disease) was increased 2-3X at the high doses used in the study… So they pulled the drug with out being asked to.

Now people claim that the company new “long before”. Why because earlier studies showed a statistically significant increase in CHD in patients taking the drug but not a clinically significant increase. But “just in case” they told people to only take the “big doses” for 14 days (50mg QD), because at lower doses no increased risk was seen.(12.5-25mg QD)

The drug: Vioxx
The evil company: Merck

No good deed goes unpunished

New??? :confused:

Nothing new about that. Typical overprotective, too lazy to figure something out on her own to keep the "bad naughty things" away from their own children yet vocal enough to try to start a movement that will try to effect what everybody can say or do or even buy.

This is nothing that’s new.

It isn't up to Wal-Mart or the government to protect your children from purchasing inappropriate material. Only the parents can decide what their children should have and excert the necessary oversight to enforce their decisions. This lawsuit is the very defination of frivilous.

evanescence should be banned just for being evanescence

So very true.

I think legislature should be introduced to harshly punish people who bring these bullshit lawsuits... or getting shit on by an elephant with the runs. We'll see a massive reduction in whiny people trying to make a buck over the stupidest things.

PS: If my swearing offended you, sue me.

PPS: Please don't, I can't afford it.

PPPS: Go for it, I'll launch a countersuit against you for harassment.

PPPPS: <yada yada yada>

And they call this a free country. :rolleyes:

Overprotective my ass. I bet you all $20 that if those parents didn't see the dollar signs in this little enterprise, they wouldn't even bother bringing it up. They are opportunists of the worst kind, and have no one's interests but their own wallets' in mind here.

Does it even say what swear word it was?

Some cd's can get by without a parental warning if the cursing is mild enough. Coheed and Cambria's cd Second Stage Turbine Blade has the "fuck" in it twice in one song, but didn't get the sticker. Same with Sing the Sorrow by AFI.

Oh bloody. Just ask them to put a sticker up.

Clearly, I need to get ahold of that CD before the twits do.
it's evanesence...

you don't really want to get a hold of the cd.

the music's not good (from what i heard) and the lead singer feels the need to bash britney. not that britney bashing is bad, but she went on about how she woudl kill her and this and that and i'm like "you do realise that you suck just as badly as she does, just because you make your own clothes and pretend to be edgy doesn't make you any less pop. and she's probably make a thousand times more than you will on your little venture."

Well, lah-di-dah to swear words. Maybe they should just sue bands like U2 and REM because they occasionally let slip a curse on their albums. No one cares about context anymore. There's a big difference between "and a fucked up world that it is" and "I want to fuck your grandma".

it's evanesence...

you don't really want to get a hold of the cd.

the music's not good (from what i heard) and the lead singer feels the need to bash britney. not that britney bashing is bad, but she went on about how she woudl kill her and this and that and i'm like "you do realise that you suck just as badly as she does, just because you make your own clothes and pretend to be edgy doesn't make you any less pop. and she's probably make a thousand times more than you will on your little venture."

Not an Evanescence fan, eh?

Not an Evanescence fan, eh?
not really.

i haven't been much of a fan of recent music anymore... it's just gone all ...blah... though the black keys are alright and they're pretty new.

i may just stick to new releases from the same artists i grew up with.

and it also annoys me when female celebrities (musicians especially) feel the need to put down britney spears. i mean, her music is godawful too, but hey, she has made enough money to retire and live off comfortably for the rest of her life. i also find it stupid to describe in detail how you would kill someone you've never met... i mean... wtf? why are you wasting so much time and energy trying to make yourself seem all tough because you pick an easy target and hurl insults.

No bullshit, when I worked at a record store someone returned a CD his 12 year old had bought and demanded that we have something to protect kids from innappropriate music like the one he was returning. The CD? Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain....


words fail....

not really.

i haven't been much of a fan of recent music anymore... it's just gone all ...blah... though the black keys are alright and they're pretty new.

i may just stick to new releases from the same artists i grew up with.

and it also annoys me when female celebrities (musicians especially) feel the need to put down britney spears. i mean, her music is godawful too, but hey, she has made enough money to retire and live off comfortably for the rest of her life. i also find it stupid to describe in detail how you would kill someone you've never met... i mean... wtf? why are you wasting so much time and energy trying to make yourself seem all tough because you pick an easy target and hurl insults.

I don't think that the fact that she's also pop crap is lost on Amy Lee. I just think she believes she can somehow escape it by attacking the modern symbol of pre-packaged pop, Britney Spears.

The mediocrity of Evanescence is not the issue...the issue is the regression of American attitudes to morality. ;)

I hate people like this, they don't really care, but they are trying to cash in. $74000 for hearing a few swear words, give me a fucking break. No what should happen to this guy is that he should be foced into the middle of the town and everyone who wants to should be able to kick him in the junk, for trying to make it more expensive for me to get shit. Fuck him.
No no, $74,000 for hearing a SINGLE swear word.

evanescence should be banned just for being evanescence
And I'm sure your music is sooooo much better.

Maybe they didn't have enough pillows to sue McDonalds... ;)

And I'm sure your music is sooooo much better.

Actually, yeah, I think mine is. *plays the trumpet, has done some composing, and absolutely cannot stand Evanescence*

Actually, yeah, I think mine is. *plays the trumpet, has done some composing, and absolutely cannot stand Evanescence*

The trumpet? That's really not something you'd want to brag about...

The trumpet? That's really not something you'd want to brag about...

What do you play, Maestro?

The trumpet? That's really not something you'd want to brag about...

If I wanted to impress the typical idiot, you're right, it's not. Luckily I don't really care about these newfangled geetars or whatever you kids call music these days.

But, you're right, I should pick up the guitar and learn to play two or three power chords and be as awesome as all the high school kids.

What do you play, Maestro?

Maracas. :p

If I wanted to impress the typical idiot, you're right, it's not. Luckily I don't really care about these newfangled geetars or whatever you kids call music these days.

But, you're right, I should pick up the guitar and learn to play two or three power chords and be as awesome as all the high school kids.

Calm down, it was just a joke. But seriously, the trumpet? ;)

Overprotective my ass. I bet you all $20 that if those parents didn't see the dollar signs in this little enterprise, they wouldn't even bother bringing it up. They are opportunists of the worst kind, and have no one's interests but their own wallets' in mind here.
So I forgot to add greedy. My brain is otherwise occupied getting ready for finals next week. But I have had to deal with overprotective parents who have made similar claims. And there is the possibility that they just want to impose their will on others.

Calm down, it was just a joke. But seriously, the trumpet? ;)

A joke that's about as funny as "one time at band camp" simply because of the sheer originality of it.

But, yeah, the trumpet. I get to play loud, I get the melody, and I of course get to be a jackass because that's expected of all trumpet players. :D

The trumpet? That's really not something you'd want to brag about...
Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie... outstanding musicians both, who played the trumpet. People are still listening to their music nearly half a century later, but playing the the same instrument as them is nothing to brag about, I guess? So what's a good instrument?(I get that you're joking, but come on: what's wrong with the trumpet?)

Anyway, I suppose the general consensus is that it's a silly law suit. Oh here's another thought: why name a band Evanescense? It can't be a positive influence on their staying power. A name like that just begs for you to fade into obscurity.

Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie... outstanding musicians both, who played the trumpet. People are still listening to their music nearly half a century later, but playing the the same instrument as them is nothing to brag about, I guess?

Yeah, and Bach played the harpsichord and people still listen to his music. :P

So what's a good instrument?(I get that you're joking, but come on: what's wrong with the trumpet?)

There's nothing wrong with the trumpet, there's nothing wrong with any instrument. I do prefer the saxophone, though.

I don't think that the fact that she's also pop crap is lost on Amy Lee. I just think she believes she can somehow escape it by attacking the modern symbol of pre-packaged pop, Britney Spears.

I think the important point is that, if Amy expresses an opinion, or utters a spicy word, it's because she has chosen to - rather than following whichever set of programming or pre-scripting is currently available, in the lower range 'Brit-bot' model.

Yeah, it's still a big improvement on Britney "I honestly think we should do whatever the President wants" Spears. :rolleyes:

Beware of the power of the puritans with the government. They might pressure the fascists to take your freedom of speech. Not because the government is moralistic but because it suits them and their desire/need for control.


Edit: hehe, now THAT sounds like something a conspiracy theorist would say. But I'm not joking. The government likes to control people. Just look at the rate bio-implants are being promoted. You can already have a chip in your arm in order to pass everyone at the line in some clubs. And the government wants to put it on prisoners, to control them.
You are next.

Another issue is parents making cases out of their children.

The girl is 13, she probably already swears more than what was in that CD.

I think the important point is that, if Amy expresses an opinion, or utters a spicy word, it's because she has chosen to - rather than following whichever set of programming or pre-scripting is currently available, in the lower range 'Brit-bot' model.

No, if Amy "People Say I'm Hot Although My Face Isn't Attractive and If I Wasn't Wearing This 'Homemade' Clothing I Would Look Rather Thick" Lee says anything "edgy" or any other opinion, its because the PR department told her to so that she sounds like a serious musician.

Anybody who actually understands music and the pop music industry already understands that Britney Spears is more actress than musician. Amy Lee's criticizing of Spears as if she was a musician only proves that Lee either did not truely believe that or has very little musical understanding whatsoever.

Next, maybe she can criticizes Jerry Lewis's acting ability.

My son isn't even a year old yet and I'm already getting frustrated with the idea of people wanting to protect our children. I've begun taking an interest in the local school board and I see it often enough to make me seethe.

Someone in my community is trying AGAIN to remove Stephen King novels from the town's public library. It's her fifth attempt in as many years. She says it's to 'protect our children from vulgarity and sensationalist filth'. I actually responded to her. I said and I quote;

"Who the hell are you? What my child reads is nobody's business but mine and my child's. The purpose of a library is to be a repository of knowledge and literature. They are not in the business of policing what is acceptable for me and my child to read. That's MY job. I wouldn't think to tell you what your child can and can't read. Do the rest of us the same courtesy.'

I was fuming. I'm a very difficult person to anger. I really am. But people who think they can decide how I raise my child for me really steam me up. :mad:

Yeah, it's still a big improvement on Britney "I honestly think we should do whatever the President wants" Spears. :rolleyes:

It's a symptom of America's current sickness.

If you look earnest, and occasionally let out the occasional non-Puritan phrasing, you are BAD (tm).

Whereas, it is fine to sell bondage, slavery, superficiality and underage sex - provided you have the decency to do it dressed as a Catholic schoolgirl, and make the right spastic movements to the corporate... sorry, national... flag.
Then, you are GOOD (tm).

Or maybe, I'm just too cynical.

My son isn't even a year old yet and I'm already getting frustrated with the idea of people wanting to protect our children. I've begun taking an interest in the local school board and I see it often enough to make me seethe.

Someone in my community is trying AGAIN to remove Stephen King novels from the town's public library. It's her fifth attempt in as many years. She says it's to 'protect our children from vulgarity and sensationalist filth'. I actually responded to her. I said and I quote;

"Who the hell are you? What my child reads is nobody's business but mine and my child's. The purpose of a library is to be a repository of knowledge and literature. They are not in the business of policing what is acceptable for me and my child to read. That's MY job. I wouldn't think to tell you what your child can and can't read. Do the rest of us the same courtesy.'

I was fuming. I'm a very difficult person to anger. I really am. But people who think they can decide how I raise my child for me really steam me up. :mad:Welcome to the world of parenting surrounded by people who are positive--not just think they might be holier--that they are holier than you and that they are going to save your soul whether you like it or not. And that includes saving your children's souls as well.

No, if Amy "People Say I'm Hot Although My Face Isn't Attractive and If I Wasn't Wearing This 'Homemade' Clothing I Would Look Rather Thick" Lee says anything "edgy" or any other opinion, its because the PR department told her to so that she sounds like a serious musician.

Anybody who actually understands music and the pop music industry already understands that Britney Spears is more actress than musician. Amy Lee's criticizing of Spears as if she was a musician only proves that Lee either did not truely believe that or has very little musical understanding whatsoever.

Next, maybe she can criticizes Jerry Lewis's acting ability.

Fascinating.. you seem to base the first half of your argument on the fact that people find her attractive, that you DON'T find her attractive, that you DON'T like her dress-sense, and that you think she is, how did you say, "rather thick"?

You have looked far beyond all superficiality in your reasoning, I see.

I AM glad that you stated a difference between 'music' and 'the pop music industry' - since the two spheres have very little interface.

You don't allow, however, for the fact that Amy Lee (who actually has an extraordinary voice, whether or not you like her songs) might GENUINELY be distressed at fact that Britney is held-up as a 'musical' icon.

The parents of a 13-year-old girl are suing US supermarket giant Wal-Mart over a CD by rock group Evanescence that contains swear words.

"It needs to be removed from the shelves to prevent other children from hearing it," said Mr Skeens of Brownsville.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4088757.stm

Only in America. :rolleyes:

If they don't want their kid to listen to it, fine. How they raise their own kids in their business. But trying to dictate what everyone else can or cannot listen to? That's just b.s., plain and simple.

The parents of a 13-year-old girl are suing US supermarket giant Wal-Mart over a CD by rock group Evanescence that contains swear words.

"It needs to be removed from the shelves to prevent other children from hearing it," said Mr Skeens of Brownsville.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4088757.stm

Only in America. :rolleyes:
i was so going to make this topic with basically the same wording, damn beat me to it

you wouldnt even have to know this is an american case to know its american

"well some girls parents are suing a store because its selling a cd with certain lyrics on the cd? yup thats in america"

Fascinating.. you seem to base the first half of your argument on the fact that people find her attractive, that you DON'T find her attractive, that you DON'T like her dress-sense, and that you think she is, how did you say, "rather thick"?

You have looked far beyond all superficiality in your reasoning, I see.

I AM glad that you stated a difference between 'music' and 'the pop music industry' - since the two spheres have very little interface.

You don't allow, however, for the fact that Amy Lee (who actually has an extraordinary voice, whether or not you like her songs) might GENUINELY be distressed at fact that Britney is held-up as a 'musical' icon.

Who seriously holds Britney Spears up as a "musical" icon?

My comments on Lee's appearance was aimed at the marketing ploy the record labels to market her as a sex symbol in just the same way they market Britney Spears.

The trouble is Evanescence falls squarely in the pop music industry, as it has little to offer by way of true musical quality. Regardless of Amy Lee's vocal talents, I cannot respect her or the band any more than Britney Spears.

Who seriously holds Britney Spears up as a "musical" icon?

My comments on Lee's appearance was aimed at the marketing ploy the record labels to market her as a sex symbol in just the same way they market Britney Spears.

The trouble is Evanescence falls squarely in the pop music industry, as it has little to offer by way of true musical quality. Regardless of Amy Lee's vocal talents, I cannot respect her or the band any more than Britney Spears.
i really dont like her "vocal talents" either

i really dont like her "vocal talents" either

Yeah, I know, thats why I never endorsed them.

If I was the judge in this case I'd say this:

Sorry people, but the real problem is that your daughter is like most "popular" people, a very shallow consumeristic person who has no real value to society and parents like you who don't care that their kids have become this way. Stop parenting and go on a better pursuit such as suicide.


When someone becomes real popular in anyway, they become shallow and begin to suck real bad.

Who seriously holds Britney Spears up as a "musical" icon?

My comments on Lee's appearance was aimed at the marketing ploy the record labels to market her as a sex symbol in just the same way they market Britney Spears.

The trouble is Evanescence falls squarely in the pop music industry, as it has little to offer by way of true musical quality. Regardless of Amy Lee's vocal talents, I cannot respect her or the band any more than Britney Spears.

Once again - I question your shallowness. You object to Amy Lee being marketed as a sex symbol, 'like Britney Spears'...

Personally - I'd take Amy Lee over Brit-bot any day, but that isn't what influences my 'politics' on the music front - since my exposure came through listening to my wife's CD, long before I ever laid eyes on the Artist, herself.

And, I'm sorry - but no matter the 'context' of your criticism, the 'content' of your criticism spoke loud enough. So, you object to the way she's packaged... fair dues, but you aren't arguing with her packaging... you are arguing that it is wrong for such packaging to be used on someone 'like her'.

"Little to offer by way of true musical quality" is a fairly subjective assesment, don't you think?

I'm not a big Evanesence fan, but I DO like some of the lyrical technique, and I do appreciate Amy Lee's range and ability. I don't think there is much depth to her 'band' - but I would argue that you should be able to find SOME artistic merit wihin the collective.

I dread to think what you might put forward as someone who DOES evidence "true musical quality"...

i really dont like her "vocal talents" either
Hey Chess you and I are not in agreement very often but I gotta go with all of you on this. As an evengelical or fundementalists (whichever you prefer) I absolutely can not stand any form of censorship(except of child porn or bestiality and once again ANY BOOK BY MADONNA"firmly planting tongue in cheek to the MAdonna comment")I support Walmart's choice to decide not to sell certain types of materials just as I support any business that chooses to sell anything by any artist or authour. The government does need to get out of this areana. And the lawsuits need to go....We need serious tort reform...The anti smoking zealots,the censorship zealots ,the zealots of all types need to stop suing...Our court system was not intended for this....Can I get an AMEN?!!!


Thanx all.....




And one more thing........HEY PARENTS OF ALL PERSAUSIONS TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN KIDS AND RAISE THEM IN THE WAY YOU SEE BEST AND LET THE REST OF THE WORLD DO THE SAME.....

Hey Chess you and I are not in agreement very often but I gotta go with all of you on this. As an evengelical or fundementalists (whichever you prefer) I absolutely can not stand any form of censorship(except of child porn or bestiality and once again ANY BOOK BY MADONNA"firmly planting tongue in cheek to the MAdonna comment")I support Walmart's choice to decide not to sell certain types of materials just as I support any business that chooses to sell anything by any artist or authour. The government does need to get out of this areana. And the lawsuits need to go....We need serious tort reform...The anti smoking zealots,the censorship zealots ,the zealots of all types need to stop suing...Our court system was not intended for this....Can I get an AMEN?!!!


Thanx all.....
im pretty sure you are readign too much into i dont like their vocal talent

when i say i dont like her vocal talent i mean i think she sings only slightly better than avril lavigne

i do not support walmart pretending they are a faceless mom and pop superstore catering to the fundamentalist bullshit because thats who sells their souls to walmart for 5 udnerwear for a dollar

but yes the ludicrous suing is well, ludicrous. and guess which president-elect had a plan, almost exactly like mine ironically? not george bush.

im pretty sure you are readign too much into i dont like their vocal talent

when i say i dont like her vocal talent i mean i think she sings only slightly better than avril lavigne

i do not support walmart pretending they are a faceless mom and pop superstore catering to the fundamentalist bullshit because thats who sells their souls to walmart for 5 udnerwear for a dollar

but yes the ludicrous suing is well, ludicrous. and guess which president-elect had a plan, almost exactly like mine ironically? not george bush.
But private businesses have a right to cater to whoever they want especially if that is where they get their support....i really do not care for Walmart either because the company supports some very left leaning candidates but that is their choice and we have to honour that right?

I think there should be a charge of "wasting judical time." I mean, if buying a CD with a swear on it means $70,000 dollars in compensation. If I said a swear to 13 year old girl, should I be sued $70,000? I am against Wal-Mart in many ways, but in this case I am for them. If they have a stupid enough customer then something bad has to happen. I can see it now, 10 million dollars for kid throwing baseball into light and blinding them or death by falling toaster from top shelf.

Once again - I question your shallowness. You object to Amy Lee being marketed as a sex symbol, 'like Britney Spears'...

Personally - I'd take Amy Lee over Brit-bot any day, but that isn't what influences my 'politics' on the music front - since my exposure came through listening to my wife's CD, long before I ever laid eyes on the Artist, herself.

And, I'm sorry - but no matter the 'context' of your criticism, the 'content' of your criticism spoke loud enough. So, you object to the way she's packaged... fair dues, but you aren't arguing with her packaging... you are arguing that it is wrong for such packaging to be used on someone 'like her'.

"Little to offer by way of true musical quality" is a fairly subjective assesment, don't you think?

I'm not a big Evanesence fan, but I DO like some of the lyrical technique, and I do appreciate Amy Lee's range and ability. I don't think there is much depth to her 'band' - but I would argue that you should be able to find SOME artistic merit wihin the collective.

I dread to think what you might put forward as someone who DOES evidence "true musical quality"...

I am a shallow person, we are a shallow nation, it happens.

I have no problem with the packaging, marketing is the biggest industry in this nation. I have a problem with Amy Lee criticizing Britney Spears when she has absolutely no justification for it. When Amy Lee, or Linkin Park, or whoever else wants to criticize pop music, they should try to stop making it. It's one thing to market yourself as a pop star if you actually are pop star, but it's a completely different thing to market yourself as an anti-pop star when you are still a pop star. Amy Lee loses credibility by taking herself seriously when there isn't anything to take seriously.

As for her voice, she doesn't have so much range, rather she has a high voice. She is able to substitute singing louder for actual melody and get away with it. And Evanescence's lyrics are not intelligent in any way.

As for true musical talent...

how about The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Sam Cooke, Al Green, Bob Dylan, The Kinks, Television.


More recently My Bloody Valentine, Radiohead, The Shins, Iron and Wine, Sufjan Stevens, Rogue Wave, The Verve, Beulah, The Decemberists, And You Will Know Us By the Trail of Dead.

But private businesses have a right to cater to whoever they want especially if that is where they get their support....i really do not care for Walmart either because the company supports some very left leaning candidates but that is their choice and we have to honour that right?What particular brand of crack are you smoking? You might want to stay away from it in the future if it's got you thinking that Wal-Mart supports left-leaning candidates.

OK, so let's hear from a... "moderate":

If the Motion Picture Assoociation put a PG-13 rating on a movie that should have gotten an R rating, whose fault is that? The theatre's? Hell no, it's their fault. So if this peice of crap album was in fact offensive, it's the people who slap on the parental warnings that are to blame, not the retailers. So if there is indeed anything tortuous here ($74,000 for each child who bought an album with ONE swear word???), it's the Parental Advisory Board, or whomever, who should get sued. These people wanted to form an industry regulated system rather than allow the gov to pass laws, so they should bare the responsibility. But Hell, if they had a more nuanced system, like the MPA does, they wouldn't have problems like this. "Rattle and Hum" would get a "code yellow", or whatever, while Eminem would get a "code red".

But anyway, people look for these stickers to keep naughty words out of their kids' ears. So they should mean something. Not a fucking-$74,000 something, but something.

I actually think such law suites can serve public interests. Either swear words in publications that might be expected not to contain swear words, should be clearly signalled, or it should be explicitly clear that the law does allow swear words to appear in what a reasonable person might construe would not contain cussing. That way everyone knows what their obligations are; companies who dont want to be sued will be reminded to abide by currently ignored, but legally enforcable obligations, or parents will be sent a clear message that if they wish to avoid having their children hear any cussing or swearing, it is entirely up to the parent to censor such material as music C.D.s (for instance by listening to such C.D.s themselves before approving purchass).

Whatever people's personal opinion may be, parents do have a right to refuse to supply/allow their (minor aged) children to own material the parent thinks is offensive. It is beneficial to all parties that the extent to which parents need to be proactive in screening media, and the extent to which parents can expect possibly objectional material to be pointed out, be clear to all. Either way, it is better that everyone is clear on exactly how the law views matters so that they are able to reasonably protect their own interests.

Evanescence, cussing? :confused:

I am a shallow person, we are a shallow nation, it happens.

I have no problem with the packaging, marketing is the biggest industry in this nation. I have a problem with Amy Lee criticizing Britney Spears when she has absolutely no justification for it. When Amy Lee, or Linkin Park, or whoever else wants to criticize pop music, they should try to stop making it. It's one thing to market yourself as a pop star if you actually are pop star, but it's a completely different thing to market yourself as an anti-pop star when you are still a pop star. Amy Lee loses credibility by taking herself seriously when there isn't anything to take seriously.

As for her voice, she doesn't have so much range, rather she has a high voice. She is able to substitute singing louder for actual melody and get away with it. And Evanescence's lyrics are not intelligent in any way.

I dunno, some of her songs arn't too bad. And honestly, there's a big difference between "You know you wanna fuck me" Spears and "Pseudo gothtastic!" Lee. I have more respect for Lee. I have none for Spears.

The parents of a 13-year-old girl are suing US supermarket giant Wal-Mart over a CD by rock group Evanescence that contains swear words.

"It needs to be removed from the shelves to prevent other children from hearing it," said Mr Skeens of Brownsville.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4088757.stm

Only in America. :rolleyes:

Sends Mr Skeens a copy of South Park CD disguised as a Christian music CD. :D

this is retarded.

I actually think such law suites can serve public interests. Either swear words in publications that might be expected not to contain swear words, should be clearly signalled, or it should be explicitly clear that the law does allow swear words to appear in what a reasonable person might construe would not contain cussing. That way everyone knows what their obligations are; companies who dont want to be sued will be reminded to abide by currently ignored, but legally enforcable obligations, or parents will be sent a clear message that if they wish to avoid having their children hear any cussing or swearing, it is entirely up to the parent to censor such material as music C.D.s (for instance by listening to such C.D.s themselves before approving purchass).

Whatever people's personal opinion may be, parents do have a right to refuse to supply/allow their (minor aged) children to own material the parent thinks is offensive. It is beneficial to all parties that the extent to which parents need to be proactive in screening media, and the extent to which parents can expect possibly objectional material to be pointed out, be clear to all. Either way, it is better that everyone is clear on exactly how the law views matters so that they are able to reasonably protect their own interests.Yeah, right, they have the right to refuse to allow their kid to own what they think is objectional.

Here's a novel idea, don't buy it for them. If you give them money, control what they spend it on. Pay attention to what your kid owns/listens to.

These fuckin morons are trying to sue someone because they don't want to be troubled to do their jobs as parents.

Does anyone know what the swear word is? I get the feeling they are more against the music than the swear word, especially if that CD has Tourniquet on it.

*grumble*Stupid morality police *grumble*

I hate people like this, they don't really care, but they are trying to cash in. $74000 for hearing a few swear words, give me a fucking break. No what should happen to this guy is that he should be foced into the middle of the town and everyone who wants to should be able to kick him in the junk, for trying to make it more expensive for me to get shit. Fuck him.

Wowee! Now I'm going to sue Tricky Dicky 'F*CK YOU!!* Cheney...

evanescence should be banned just for being evanescence
I second that motion.
As for the whole mess; why do people get all riled up? Forget about it! Complaining won't do you any good.

People who make these ridiculous lawsuits ought to be led to the gallows.

I'm confused... Evenescence doesn't have any swear words in their music...

The parents of a 13-year-old girl are suing US supermarket giant Wal-Mart over a CD by rock group Evanescence that contains swear words.

"It needs to be removed from the shelves to prevent other children from hearing it," said Mr Skeens of Brownsville.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4088757.stm

Only in America. :rolleyes:
Ha!!! This means the end of the bitching, fucking and hoeing Hip Hop and rap!!! :D

I dunno, some of her songs arn't too bad. And honestly, there's a big difference between "You know you wanna fuck me" Spears and "Pseudo gothtastic!" Lee. I have more respect for Lee. I have none for Spears.

I'm with you.

I am a shallow person, we are a shallow nation, it happens.

I have no problem with the packaging, marketing is the biggest industry in this nation. I have a problem with Amy Lee criticizing Britney Spears when she has absolutely no justification for it. When Amy Lee, or Linkin Park, or whoever else wants to criticize pop music, they should try to stop making it. It's one thing to market yourself as a pop star if you actually are pop star, but it's a completely different thing to market yourself as an anti-pop star when you are still a pop star. Amy Lee loses credibility by taking herself seriously when there isn't anything to take seriously.

As for her voice, she doesn't have so much range, rather she has a high voice. She is able to substitute singing louder for actual melody and get away with it. And Evanescence's lyrics are not intelligent in any way.

As for true musical talent...

how about The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Sam Cooke, Al Green, Bob Dylan, The Kinks, Television.


More recently My Bloody Valentine, Radiohead, The Shins, Iron and Wine, Sufjan Stevens, Rogue Wave, The Verve, Beulah, The Decemberists, And You Will Know Us By the Trail of Dead.

Do I lack respect for Amy Lee for being a concubine of the pop-music industry? No - because I think she is pushing the envelope of pop-music away from Brit-bot-centric masturbation-fantasy poster bands - and into somewhere that is, at least, a little less ejaculatory, and a little more 'diverse'.

I feel the same way about Amy Lee whoring herself to pop, as I do to Vin Deisel making "xXx" (in the wake of "Pitch Black")... you can fight the power all you like, but if you want some dollars, you have to sell something.

I am bearing in mind the fact that Evanesence are still a 'new band', and still have the potential (after a not-too-commercial beginning) to do some interesting things.

I cannot believe you attack Amy Lee for pop-whoredom, and then suggest The Beatles as someone who peddled 'true music'. :0

I agree with you on Bob Dylan (obviously), and The Kinks, MBV and Radiohead. I'd have to argue against The Verve, since I see them as occupying a middleground much closer to pop-central than Amy Lee, but without the commercial success.

Of course, what do I know, I would have offered up The Sisters of Mercy, Pigface, The Swans and Einsturzende Neubauten...

Here's an agreement- kids are banned from going to school, since the amount of curse words and "content" there definately gets and R rating. :rolleyes:

No, here's another one- all pop music is DELETED! The only music left would be good music, such as classical type music, jazz, and the various non-pop varieties of rock (punk, metal, etc.) Rap would be labeled "REALLY stupid pop" and as such banned as well.

Evanescence, cussing? :confused:
The cd in question is several live perfomances. The swear may not even have been in the actual song itself.

From there, one can conclude that any form of music is a path to temptation and sin. All instruments would have to be banned - the only music being permitted would be the singing of approved religious hymns without any sort of musical backing.

From there, one can conclude that any form of music is a path to temptation and sin. All instruments would have to be banned - the only music being permitted would be the singing of approved religious hymns without any sort of musical backing.
In Islam, you get a basic drum beat as well.

Heathens. :mad:

Does it even say what swear word it was?

Some cd's can get by without a parental warning if the cursing is mild enough. Coheed and Cambria's cd Second Stage Turbine Blade has the "fuck" in it twice in one song, but didn't get the sticker. Same with Sing the Sorrow by AFI.


PG-13 movies are allotted 4 uses of "fuck" each, the same with non-advisory cd's.
*Pictures tainting children's minds with altered barney sing-alongs, with 4 placements of fuck tactically inside*

From there, one can conclude that any form of music is a path to temptation and sin. All instruments would have to be banned - the only music being permitted would be the singing of approved religious hymns without any sort of musical backing.
Well of course it should be, because music leads to dancing, and we all know that dancing is the devil's way of getting you to look at the booty. :D

PG-13 movies are allotted 4 uses of "fuck" each, the same with non-advisory cd's.
*Pictures tainting children's minds with altered barney sing-alongs, with 4 placements of fuck tactically inside*
You mean hearing fuck four times in 90 minutes isn't corrupting, but anything above that is. Cencors are weird.

If I was the judge in this case I'd say this:

Sorry people, but the real problem is that your daughter is like most "popular" people, a very shallow consumeristic person who has no real value to society and parents like you who don't care that their kids have become this way. Stop parenting and go on a better pursuit such as suicide.





I agree with that idea. It would be quite beneficial to the U.S. if most of us simply dropped dead, about 51% of us should be about right.

But I don't think that it could be helped that the dumb girl wanted to fit in. Do you remember when you were in middle school? That was the deepest pit in hell to someone who was different! Whereas in college and in some high schools, differences are regarded as extraordinary, in middle school, kids get beaten up for saying that their favorite thing to do is play Ancient Domains of Mystery! (A fun as hell free rouge RPG, you all should take up playing it, it's awesome because you only get to die once, so you have to be really careful, but you will always be learning how to play better.)
I only think that the parents should be executed. The child will end up resisting her parents and turn into a drug-using, free sex having, Atheistic rebel, just to shame them. And that is something we can all be happy about. :D

The good thing about being different from the "different" people in High School is that you can laugh at their stupidity. Go ahead, be "like, SO unique" with your consumerist ideology, listening to your mass produced retard music while wearing you extremely unique mass produced Abercrombie and American Eagle shit that is made using minimum wage outsourced labor... Those stores are also racist, with slogans such as "Two Wongs can Make it White". Bleh. Every day I feel like applying my shoes to their noses. And these are "Gifted and Talented" people. Yeah, talented like my snot. Shallow little preppy wannabees, carring only about money and buying new friends with gum and such. If anyone asks how they got into G&T if they're so stupid, here's how- they copy down what the teacher says word for word then ask nerds or their parents (almost exclusively white lawyers with enough money to lubricate the school so that their kids get to fire teachers that try to shut them up during class[are competent]) to explain.

The worst thing that this is moving over the atlantic to Britian too. Did anyone see that thing aboout how The Guardian did a test and made up a accedent and sent it to several 'Insurance' companys. I think it was something link a ferson was startled by a barking do, triped over a pavings stone and got there hand ridden over by a bicycle. Almost all the firms offered to take the case on.

Anyway, theres swear words everywhere. If you don't like it you can go and stick your head in the sand because as far as I'm concerned curse words have been around forever, and I'm not going to stop using them.

I dunno, some of her songs arn't too bad. And honestly, there's a big difference between "You know you wanna fuck me" Spears and "Pseudo gothtastic!" Lee. I have more respect for Lee. I have none for Spears.

You have more respect for a pseudo-goth than for an honest slut? Why?

Yeah, right, they have the right to refuse to allow their kid to own what they think is objectional.

Here's a novel idea, don't buy it for them. If you give them money, control what they spend it on. Pay attention to what your kid owns/listens to.

These fuckin morons are trying to sue someone because they don't want to be troubled to do their jobs as parents.
Yes parents do indeed have the right to refuse to allow their minor aged children to own objectional material. With regards to you 'novel idea' there is nothing novel about it, indeed if someone had not thought of it for themselves, I cant imagine how they would fail realise it was an option after reading my own earlier post (ie or parents will be sent a clear message that if they wish to avoid having their children hear any cussing or swearing, it is entirely up to the parent to censor such material as music C.D.s (for instance by listening to such C.D.s themselves before approving purchass).)
The fact is either someone involved in the production and/or selling of CDs is legally obliged to warn of content that may be offensive to large groups of people, or they are not. If the earlier, companies who might find themselved legally culpable, need to know this so they can protect their interests by filling their obligations, if the latter, parents need to know this, so they can be aware that they cannot assume a music CD that carries no warning of offensive material doesnt contain cuss-words, and that to be certain a music CD is suitable (in their minds) for their children to own, that they need to listen to the CD prior to purchass. I dont personally care much which way the decisions goes, I do happen to think that it is important that if companies might be legally culpable for something, that this is clearly signalled, and if parents need to be aware that they should check the contents of music CDs rather than rely on 'warning stickers' to alert them to content they may not approve of, that this is also clearly signalled.

Basically I think it is good for people to know where their obligations start and finish, and what the obligations of others they interact with is. I really cant understand why any reasonable person would think otherwise, perhaps you will enlighten me? :confused:

You have more respect for a pseudo-goth than for an honest slut? Why?

I hate to say this-really I do-but what makes a better role model?

I'd rather my daughter be pseudo-goth then slutty, to be completely honest.




I'd say more, but really, Grave pretty much covered it completely.

Yes parents do indeed have the right to refuse to allow their minor aged children to own objectional material. With regards to you 'novel idea' there is nothing novel about it, indeed if someone had not thought of it for themselves, I cant imagine how they would fail realise it was an option after reading my own earlier post (ie or parents will be sent a clear message that if they wish to avoid having their children hear any cussing or swearing, it is entirely up to the parent to censor such material as music C.D.s (for instance by listening to such C.D.s themselves before approving purchass).)
The fact is either someone involved in the production and/or selling of CDs is legally obliged to warn of content that may be offensive to large groups of people, or they are not. If the earlier, companies who might find themselved legally culpable, need to know this so they can protect their interests by filling their obligations, if the latter, parents need to know this, so they can be aware that they cannot assume a music CD that carries no warning of offensive material doesnt contain cuss-words, and that to be certain a music CD is suitable (in their minds) for their children to own, that they need to listen to the CD prior to purchass. I dont personally care much which way the decisions goes, I do happen to think that it is important that if companies might be legally culpable for something, that this is clearly signalled, and if parents need to be aware that they should check the contents of music CDs rather than rely on 'warning stickers' to alert them to content they may not approve of, that this is also clearly signalled.

Basically I think it is good for people to know where their obligations start and finish, and what the obligations of others they interact with is. I really cant understand why any reasonable person would think otherwise, perhaps you will enlighten me? :confused:Glad to. I was raised before this whole 'parental warning' thing came about. Back then we had parental warnings, they came from our parents. I buy explicit lyric albums for my children, I don't rely on the warnings, I actually listen to the album. If I object, I don't buy it. My childrens ages range from 10 to 23, I decide what's appropriate for all under 18. I don't need a warning label to tell me what is and isn't. That's called parenting. Pushing the responsibility to others to decide what is appropiate is a cop-out. You want to fall back on some legal definition of obligation, I'm talking about parental responsibility.

Do I lack respect for Amy Lee for being a concubine of the pop-music industry? No - because I think she is pushing the envelope of pop-music away from Brit-bot-centric masturbation-fantasy poster bands - and into somewhere that is, at least, a little less ejaculatory, and a little more 'diverse'.

No they aren't, they are keeping pop-music right where it is. As long as people say that bands like Evanesense are pushing the envelope of pop-music, then envelope will never be pushed. You do realize that all Evanescence did was take Linkin Park and put a chick singing with them, right.

I feel the same way about Amy Lee whoring herself to pop, as I do to Vin Deisel making "xXx" (in the wake of "Pitch Black")... you can fight the power all you like, but if you want some dollars, you have to sell something.

Or they could make good music and not rely on massive corporate sponsorship and promotion.

I am bearing in mind the fact that Evanesence are still a 'new band', and still have the potential (after a not-too-commercial beginning) to do some interesting things.

They sold 3.4 million albums in 2003, I cannot imagine much more commercial success than that.

I cannot believe you attack Amy Lee for pop-whoredom, and then suggest The Beatles as someone who peddled 'true music'. :0

Are you serious??? The Beatles are the shining example of a band that managed to grow bigger than the record labels and make their own music. They took full advantage of it and made some of the most genre stretching and defining songs of the century. I can't imagine you have listened to anything Revolver and after.

I agree with you on Bob Dylan (obviously), and The Kinks, MBV and Radiohead. I'd have to argue against The Verve, since I see them as occupying a middleground much closer to pop-central than Amy Lee, but without the commercial success.

The Verve closer to pop-central than Amy Lee? How many Verve songs have you heard on MTV out of their four (I think) releases?

Of course, what do I know, I would have offered up The Sisters of Mercy, Pigface, The Swans and Einsturzende Neubauten...

Namedropping 20,000 obscure bands isn't going to rescue your argument from the fact that you claim the Beatles didn't make real music.

I hate to say this-really I do-but what makes a better role model?

I'd rather my daughter be pseudo-goth then slutty, to be completely honest.




I'd say more, but really, Grave pretty much covered it completely.

If we are talking about personality, sure I have more respect for Amy Lee. However, musically I don't have any respect for either.

If we are talking about personality, sure I have more respect for Amy Lee. However, musically I don't have any respect for either.

Like I said before I don't think Amy Lee is really that bad. I can sit in a car and listen to her if I don't have my cds with me.

Spears makes me turn off the radio. I'd rather have silence then her.

I think there should be a charge of "wasting judical time." I mean, if buying a CD with a swear on it means $70,000 dollars in compensation. If I said a swear to 13 year old girl, should I be sued $70,000? I am against Wal-Mart in many ways, but in this case I am for them. If they have a stupid enough customer then something bad has to happen. I can see it now, 10 million dollars for kid throwing baseball into light and blinding them or death by falling toaster from top shelf.

The answer here is really quite simple. Litigants should only get to keep the damages that directly accrue from the action of the company/individual/organisation in question. And they should be made to provide a reasonable estimate of those damages. And any and all damages paid out should be paid into a ring-fenced account which can only be used to directly pay for those damages. So in this case they should get, what, $50 to be kept ready for any future payment into swear-jars. 'Course, the girl should make sure to get a receipt. ;)

Punitive damages, on the other hand, should be given to registered charities and other organsiations that deal with issues relating to the case at hand. So in this case maybe councilling services or an independent organisation that provides information on indecent content. How this would work in practice is moot, maybe the plaintiff and litigant both provide a list (that they have no conflict of interest with) and have to then show why the organisations on their list are suitable, or maybe the judge chooses from a list of approved organisations.

In any case who's guessing the number of lawsuits will drop dramatically once the lawyers spiel on TV changes:

Hi, I'm Leech McSlimey. Have you been injured in an accident caused entirely by your own stupidity? Too busy or lazy to actually take charge of your own goddamn business? Want to blame someone else for your crappy life? Then come to me. Injured? GET YOUR DOCTOR'S BILLED PAID! Unfairly dismissed? GET YOUR PREVIOUS WAGE PAID WHILE LOOKING FOR A NEW JOB! (not actually looking for a job will result in getting sweet FA) Just feeling indignant about something that's nothing to do with you? GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Leech McSmiley: I can't actually make you rich for doing nothing anymore. Sorry.

Like I said before I don't think Amy Lee is really that bad. I can sit in a car and listen to her if I don't have my cds with me.

Spears makes me turn off the radio. I'd rather have silence then her.

That's your opinion and thats fine. Me? I would rather have silence than either of them. In fact I would rather have Spears than Evanesense. Why, you might ask, well I got reasons: I can only handle about 20 seconds of modern rock pseudo-angst before I get twitchy and my blood pressure rises. Amy Lee didn't have a shitty life before Evanesense and she doesn't have a shitty life now, so she should quit acting like she is unhappy as it really gets annoying.
As for Spears, I can handle someone who says she's a slut, dresses like a slut, and sing songs about how slutty she can be. If someone manages to throw a catchy melody behind, who knows maybe I might end up humming it.

Glad to. I was raised before this whole 'parental warning' thing came about.
Wow, before ratings on movies, and public broadcasting standards, impressive. I was raised where the government decided what children couldnt watch by having restrictions placed on movies, also consumption of alcohol by minors and even entry to places that existed specifically for on premises alcohol consumption. It's probably not silly since I see no reason why 5 year olds should suffer through sitting out Friday night in a pub with a rough drunken crowd, just because they are unfortunate enough to have parents too damm stupid or selfish to not take thier kids there.

Back then we had parental warnings, they came from our parents.
Well as I said the state maintained minimal regulations to protect those people unfortunate to not have parents who would not maintain them volunteerily, when I was raised, and such restrictions are still in place now.

I buy explicit lyric albums for my children, I don't rely on the warnings, I actually listen to the album.
So do I, I see no problem if the concept being presented is one that my child is mature enough to handle. He knows very well that the responsibility of having access to such media (ie media where there is cussing) is that he realises what is and is not acceptable to emulate.

If I object, I don't buy it. My childrens ages range from 10 to 23, I decide what's appropriate for all under 18.
My dependent is 10, and I certainly hope I am sufficient to the task of parenting that at 18 he will be able to navigate his own way through the mediascape.

I don't need a warning label to tell me what is and isn't. That's called parenting. Pushing the responsibility to others to decide what is appropiate is a cop-out. You want to fall back on some legal definition of obligation, I'm talking about parental responsibility.
Neither do I need such a system since I dont expect that my own standards are likely to be exactly codified.

However I also believe that some form of content summary (such as warnings of explicit materials, or classification ratings) is useful to all parties involved). For instance if I had to go to the movies and view every movie myself, before then accompanying a child, we would not go to the movies every holidays, however because there is a well known ratings system in place I can take my dependent to any one of a number of movies I can expect will not have anything objectional in them. For movies that fall into 'borderline' categories that sometimes have things that my child is not personally mature enough about to process and other times is fine for him, we (his father and I) rent it on video anddecide for ourselves if he can watch it (at no extra cost since the video can be shown as many times as we like, so long as we return it on time - even if we run out of time for our child to watch and have to rent it again, it's still cheaper than a single trip to the movie theatre for an adult).

However both my child (who prefers to go to the movies) and the movie/cinema theatre industry benefit by flims having categories that allow me to take my child without having to 'prescreen' the movie.

The fact is parents are busy, if they have to restrict their children's consumption of media only to content they have pre-screen, children wont be consuming much media. I doubt many parents would want to sit through every episode of the Teletubbies... Now whether or not this should apply to CDs or not isnt the point. What is the point is that at the time many current parents were listening to 'popular music' the occurance of cuss-words was not what it is today, many forms warnings or classification of media occur on explicit materials, and sometimes such warnings occur on CDs. Since many such warning systems for media and mandatory, it would not be unreasonable for a parent to form the view that any explicit material on a CD would be signalled with a warning. If this is not the case, it is in the interests of parents to know this so they are aware that expecting a CD to be free of cuss words if it doesnt have a warning label, is unrealistic.

Now of course I am describing a legalistic scenario because the context of the discussion is a court case. I make no comment on what should or should not include classifications or content warnings, my point is simply that it is in societies overall interest (socially and economically) to ensure that people are clear on what media they can expect to find content warnings on, and what media they need to personally pre-screen.