True, Krem. But the parents make it sound like they're suing because there's foul language on the CD, not because there isn't a warning. In that one line, at least, but I'm not going back to find it. Too lazy.

It is my understanding the record company is responsible for the parental advisory stickers. I think Wal-Mart is being sued because they do NOT sell CD's that have the F-word. So, a consumer assumes every CD at Wal-Mart is f-word free.

There is no law that says that you have to put that sticker on; it's just an industry practice. However, Walmart is the one that touts itself as being family-friendly, so they should be the ones responsible for checking every CD.

Walmart does not sell CDs with foul words on them, from what I understand, or, at the very least, when they do sell them, they spot a warning label.

I think we're saying the same thing, but using different words. I don't want to brag, but clearly my words are prettier.

However mine carry more substance.

Btw, this is NOT a debate.

This is so ignorant. Almost as dumb as the uproar at the superbowl. People will do ANYTHING these days to get money

haha.

You have to wonder how the 13 year old girl feels about her parents doing this. This little fucking stunt of their's will probably cause the girl infinitely more anguish than hearing the word FUCK on a CD. Fucking idiotic inconsiderate greedy parents. Fuck them. :evil:

'

I concur. Hey it's alright to have a war on live television, have ridiculous amounts of blood in the passion, have violence all voer the news...but once you say FUCK...by golly look out!

Excuse me?


The Superbowl incident was overblown, but the reaction to it was anything but 'dumb'. I was as disgusted by it as any of the outraged parents were. I wouldn't want my little cousin to see crap like that on tv during a program that's meant for families.

Worst thing is that it imitates a violent act against a woman. A man is basically exposing a woman to the public. Among the 89 million viewers, you don't think some will take it the wrong way?

Easily the most idiotic stunt in a long time. This rivals the Spears/Madonna garbage.

Ok, first of all half the people didnt even know what happend until it was spread all over the news like the second holocaust. It was seriously a split second shot of a breast, and from decently far away.

And why is the spears/madonna stunt idiotic? Sure it was a desperate attempt at publicty but its nothing more than our country's feeling uncomfertable with anything homosexual related. If it were justing and britney, or nelly and xtina, or faith and tim, or anyone else, it would not have been a big deal. Are you saying its ok for two opposite sex people to kiss on live t.v. but not two same sex individuals? Is that to "taboo"?

1) That doesn't make it right.

2) It sure wasn't too far away to see for those who actually saw it and filed complaints. It's those who complained initially that brought it to the attention of the media first, and that got the wheel turning.


I thought those who sued CBS for it were just silly, but the reaction to it itself was not dumb. Overblwon, yes, but it was a stunningly stupid move on Jackson's part (and Timberlake's). The great consolation here is that Jackson's album was not anything of a major hit. I like how that turned out.

Or, maybe two entertainers exploiting the public's fascination with two women kissing and thus undermining the efforts of people who genuinly care for gay rights. The MTV stunt was a slap in the face for both those who oppose such behaviour as immoral, and those who genuinly wish to affect change in society in order to further the cause of gay rights.

I can't say I lost any respect for either Britney or Madonna, seeing how I didn't have any for either to begin with.

hmmm...Good point about the gay rights activists. Never really thought about it that way

NOTE:


there is a key difference between the two stunts, and that involves the setting. the Madonna/Spears thing was at the MTV Awards, which are known for their stupidity anyways, so any viewer watching them knows what he or she is getting.

The Jackson indicent was completely out of tune with the intended nature of the program, and was shown in front of an audience that had no intention of watching something like it. Something similar is with that Housewives gig. Those stunts will never work because the audience they try to go after will reject them coldly. That's why Jackson's album didn't fare better, and why Housewives (which was big anyways) did not register significant increases in viewership as a direct result of the stunt.

So are you in favor of ridiculous censorship?

How did you elicit that from my post? If anything, I'm completely opposed to it.


The biggest punishment for these acts is that they end up being ineffective, which as I stated, they are to begin with. By virtue of being what they are, they defeat their purpose for existing. There's no need for censorship at all, since the free market takes care of it.

If an artist sees that the Jackson incident only brought negative publicity, and that none of the attention helped album sales, they will obviously opt for another approach. Why go through all the hussle without any significant reward?

I was really asking. I wasnt trying to be a smart ass

My only thing is, I think our society(mostly America) tend to blow things WAY out of proportion, and seem to be VERY hypocritical when it comes to certain things. I suppose you could say some of these stunts were tasteless and classless, but is it really necessary to get in such an uproar about it?

Oh no, that's why I said it was overblown. But American culture is almost conditioned to react in such a way. Consider all the media outlets, forums, messageboards, tv shows, comedy programs, news channels, newspapers, celebrity magazines, etc. These are build on such events, and they're in the business of perpetuating it.

That's what's so strange about this current media obessession with events like that. It is getting rarer for it to translate into substantial sums for those people at the centre of it. Rather, it's those media outlets and individuals that benefit. Looking at the attention Britney Spears has gotten, you'd think her album sold as well as, say, Usher's, or Alicia's, yet that's not the case, is it?

Etc.

Prettier words are greater than words with substance. For example, would you rather date a pretty girl or a girl with substance? I rest my case.

Krem likes the chunky love.

Rusty your hilarious

Just a thought, rusty...you should really create a thread about "fat girls" someday.