Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
When It Comes to Peddling Hate Music, iTunes Appears to Be Selective
“Let’s see out the Fuhrer’s dream/To break the back of the eternal jew/Rid the world of the evil we’ve seen/Make it safe for me and you.”
— From “Under the Hammer” by Brutal Attack
“When the battle is over and the victory is won/And the White man’s lands are owned by true white people/the traitors will all be gone.”
— From “White Warriors” by Skrewdriver
If you thought such unabashedly bigoted music was available only from underground sources, you’d be wrong. With a few clicks at Apple’s iTunes website, Internet users can buy albums and songs from white supremacist groups such as Bully Boys, Final War, Stormtroop 16 and H8Machine.
But what has one iTunes customer particularly incensed is that the website has apparently removed homophobic songs by reggae artists, but left the white supremacist music. Galen Andrews, who lives outside Des Moines, Iowa, told Hatewatch that he thinks all hate music should be pulled from iTunes. “It made me sick,” he said of the white supremacist music. “I think it’s irresponsible of iTunes to offer that kind of music. I don’t like the fact that they’re selling racism for profit.”
Among the anti-gay songs no longer available on iTunes are Buju Banton’s “Boom Bye-Bye” and T.O.K.’s “Chi-Chi Man,” Andrews said. ITunes, which bills itself as “the world’s most popular digital media player,” did not respond to several phones messages and E-mails seeking comment. However, it’s not the only mainstream music distributor selling racist and offensive tracks.
Although Amazon.com did not return a phone message, it also peddles music from many of the same white supremacist bands. An Amazon.com spokeswoman told Fox News earlier this year that third-party companies were selling the tracks through its website, but declined to elaborate. A spokesman for CDBaby, which distributes independent music, told Hatewatch that the company doesn’t ban artists based on content, though it donates profits from music it deems racist to anti-hate organizations.
“My impression is that online music distributors currently aren’t banning racist music,” Paul Becker, a sociology professor at the University of Dayton, wrote in an E-mail to Hatewatch. “I suspect that if you asked them they would justify it because there is a wide range of music that people find offensive and how do you decide what bans you’ll implement.”
Andrews, the iTunes customer, said he doesn’t buy the argument that banning racist music inhibits freedom of speech, because artists can simply sell it elsewhere. And he disagrees that it’s difficult to determine what to ban. “You can tell straight off that it’s pretty racist,” he said.
White-power music broker Bryant Cecchini, who uses the alias Byron Calvert, also hopes racist music gets banned — but for a different reason. “Shut us down,” he said. “Make it illegal tomorrow. It would be great.”
Cecchini — whose recent ventures include Project Schoolyard Volume II, a campaign that targets teenagers with a 25-song sampler of white power music — believes that prohibiting racist content would compel artists to find subtler ways to express the same message. That, in turn, would help them reach mainstream audiences. Moreover, he told Hatewatch, it’s human nature to be attracted to the illicit. “What we do is illegal in Germany,” he said, “and it’s fifty times more popular.”
on August 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Obviously, it seems to me, perhaps an insider, an employee sympathetic to WN concepts. Which may explain the double-standard take on the choices of music allowed to be sold on iTunes. Personally, I don’t think racist and/or other denigrated scathing music should be banned altogether. That would undermined our Freedom of Speech, that could eventually serve as a pretext to other banishments.
I have ordered music from CDBaby in the past, and I liked their selections, particularly in the horrorcore, hardcore and political rap categories. And I found it to be such an excellent ingenious idea to donate the funds from purchases on racist white hatecore music to anti-hate organizations. That’s merely backstabbing the enemy on grounds of contributing to anti-hate organizations.
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Not even remotely a First Amendment issue. iTunes and Amazon have every right to dictate what they will and will not sell, just as every newspaper reserves the right to refuse to publish letters to the editor or online comments that contain objectionable material.
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Ryan the non-Aryan- makes a really good point. The companies donating the funds to anti-hate organizations would be excellent!
I don’t think the music should be illegal, because I already see the government getting involved with determining how liberal or conservative radio and talk shows can be. However,Apple should be responsible for what is sold in their shop. If thats the reputation that they want- then so be it. Lets not buy from them. We are the determining voice in this country- and it shouldn’t be left to the government to run everything.
on August 25th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
How could you ban all hate-based music. If that were the case all rap would have to be banned. And anything by a female artist of the last 20 years would need to be banned – it’s all misandristic to the core.
on August 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
The real issue here seems to be the selective implimentation of an anti-bigoted ethic. Hating gays is bad. Hating Jews/ non-Christians/ non-whites/ women is not so bad. Perhaps the market segment of those hating Jews or tolerating the hatred of Jews/ non-Christians/ non-whites/ women is greater than the market segment of those unwilling to tolerate the hating of gays. When in doubt about the real motivation of any corporate decision EVER, look to the profit margin, not the Bill of Rights, Grasshopper. When the only market left to iTunes is skinheads (which will never happen because, for any music, we are now all trapped by our i-gadgets) they will find their ethics. We can however threaten their brand equity by telling everyone we know about this.
on August 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Russ” brings up a pretty scary point:: is “Rap” a hate-based music element?
Calling someone a bitch and a whore, creating (human) property as a “Deity”, selling narcotics in one’s community as a basis for personal enrichment, elevating violence to the standard of problem solving – is this not “hate-based”?
on August 27th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Are there “rap” tunes that are hate-based? Yes. Is EVERY “rap” tune hate music? No. ALL music by female artists hate-based? That’s so very wrong one has to suspect misogyny on the part of Russ.
on August 27th, 2009 at 6:43 am
If there is an argument against selling hate music it is that most of it is extremely poor quality anyway, and thus charging money for it is practically a crime.
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:36 am
There is “hate-base” in almost every music genre(excluding gospel music as far as I’m concerned). Concentration on the notion that rap music is the only genre with hate in it, is clearly absurd. Quite retarded actually. Perhaps even “racist” towards the most loyal rap lover(not me entirely as I grew up in a household that loved rock, oldies and country). But then again, it isn’t only black folks who love rap but whites and other various ethnic groups. Notwithstanding the very fact that white supremacists are obviously offended hence-bothered by rap music, so they go on to attack that music genre. I’ve listened to a lot of metal music with copious amounts of negative elements in their lyrics. And I can easily point this out anymore than a white supremacists who can list rap artists and their lyrics that are deemed to be hateful. Its technically a no contest for them in comparison.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:56 am
It’s Free Speech First Amendment! Nowhere does it say you have to like what other people are saying or agree with it, but nevertheless it is protected! In my opinion you guys are just a pro-Lib reverse racist group who does not like what the Conservatives have to say so you want to categorize all Conservatives as racist, pro-white extremists which is not the case!
on August 27th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
It’s not a First Amendment issue, as someone else pointed out, because Apple and Amazon are private companies. Or maybe, Jack, you are some kind of Communist?
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Well if we are going to ban music that this group deems politically offensive, let’s not forget to get rid of Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Black Sabbath, The Doors, The Beatles, etc. After all, they were a big part of the musical culture that threatened the status quo. It seems the majority of the people who frequent this site do not have the courage to live in a free society. All that most of you call for is banning everything. How pathetic is that?
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Sounds just like the story line from the play “White Noise”. The show premiered in New Orleans and will be opening in New Yrok in the late fall.
Check it out; art imitates life or is it the other way around?
on August 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I do not download iTunes; therefore, I am not missing anything.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
If I recall, eBay, amazon and other major online retailers made it a point a while back to ban people from using their markets to sell nazi and WS paraphernalia. That just makes good business sense – you don’t drive away a large part of your customer base by selling offensive items to the fringe few. Why cannot iTunes make such a business policy decision? Beats me.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I am against censorship, even when it comes to these kinds of bands. I despise their lyrical content, but would not ban them. The more you make something off limits to people, the more they’ll want to check it out. Do what i did, remove ITUNES from your computer, and do not spend your money at Apple. Let them know why as well with emails/phone calls. Eventually, they’ll get the point when they start losing money.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I see that there are still those who want to defend WS and nazis as a “free speech” issue. OK, you do that. You can also defend Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson. They never killed or hurt anybody, they just told others to; they were exercising their right to free speech.
I don’t know quite what the problem is, perhaps it is an IQ issue, but it is hard to make these pinheads understand that every right exercised, including free speech, has consequences. The law is not there to suppress free speech, it is only there to enforce the consequences on people when their freedoms are misused and hurt others. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. And if that bounary is overstepped, the law is there to make the swinger live up to his responsibility, just like we have laws that make us live up to our responsibility when we say the wrong thing. There are still laws on the books, thank God, to cover libel and slander.
Of course to these morons screaming “freedom, freedom” will be the first to deny any responsibility on their part when their freedoms trample on someone else’s toes, but they’ll be the first to cry like babies to the law when their own toes get stomped on.
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
White Nationalists contend those that run the SPLC do so to advance the ethnic interests of Jewry to the detriment of the ethnic interests of Whites. Does that contention have merit?
Let us put that to the test: If Mr. X of the SPLC supports Zionism, that is the legitimacy of an ethnostate for Jews, and is not in favor of same for Whites, the question has been self-evidently answered. Because, White Americans are statistically vastly more likely to be victims of violent crimes perpetrated against them by non-Whites than are Jews in Israel to be victims of violence directed against them by Palestinians.
So, really the only question, Mr. X, do you support Zionism?
on August 28th, 2009 at 1:47 am
I appreciate the resources on this blog and the site in general. However I find the “keeping an eye on the radical right” subtitle on this one page to be, well, facile. Isn’t there enough partisan ping pong out there? I can’t stand the “right wing” either—but as information found on the rest of the SPLC site attests, the political “right” is not necessarily where haters find a home. Besides, there are good facts to be found here about issues of concern to people all over the political spectrum. Why assume—and/or ensure—-that you are only preaching to the choir?
on August 28th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Well, Jack, when the shoe fits….
on August 28th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Would just like to point out that the right wing isn’t the only bastion of idiots and lunatics. The left has it’s share as well. And I am also offended by the hateful lyrics of christian music which would condemn me to an eternity in hell for not believing in their bullshit. Why not just censor all music since I am sure that somewhere, someone is offended by e word or two in every song ever written? Freedom of speech is a combat zone. It has always been that way. As for me, I agree with Voltaire when he said that he may disagree with what you say but he would defend to the death your right to say it. Too bad no one of that strength of charcter and deserving of liberty comes to this website.
on August 28th, 2009 at 8:18 am
By the way Allen, you can also use your arguments on the president’s as well. Bush and Obama have never killed anyone, but they have certainly sent enough people to their graves in their (and yes, it is now Obama’s war as well since he is expanding the entire thing) unconstitutional and therefore illegal wars.
on August 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
It should be clear to most rational people that my example of defending bin Laden’s and Manson’s freedom of speech is simply demonstrative rhetoric. I’m not really defending those monsters, I’m just demonstrating that freedom of speech can never be absolute. “Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.” as Obi-Wan said. What I am saying is that there is a certain point where those who choose to exercise their freedoms need to be held accountable when someone gets hurt or killed, or even if the potential exists.
As for iTunes, they are a private business. If they choose to self-censor, that is their choice. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, it has to do with customer service and the profit motive. Would you, if iTunes did self-censor, try to take them to court for violating their own rights? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. It’s just like this comments blog; it belongs to SPLC, and they can censor anybody they want to. As a matter of fact, I’m surprised that SPLC has let some of you guys get away with some of the things you have said. It’s a testament to their love of the Bill of rights that they have.
on August 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Well, since you are going to be quoting Star Wars gibberish, may I remind you that your hero Obi-Wan was speaking in absolutes when he said that? Those who call for censorship are never free themselves. Freedom takes courage to face opposition. Censorship lacks such courage and takes the low road always. Though it is so very effective; Just ask Stalin.
on August 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Allen: “What I am saying is that there is a certain point where those who choose to exercise their freedoms need to be held accountable when someone gets hurt or killed, or even if the potential exists.”
Of course it is never considered by you legitimate to censor the daily allotment of anti-White dross my people are subjected to by yes, the you-know-who’s. We are told we alone are guilty of the Original Sins of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism by which we are responsible for all the ills of all the people of the world. We are told, paradoxically, that our people don’t exist, and if it is conceded that we do exist, that our existence is of no value – that is if it is even conceded our existence is not of negative value. It is no less than Julius Streicher was tortured (yes, tortured) and executed at Nuremberg for.
It is genocidalist rubbish.
on August 28th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I completely agree with you in both of your posts. Why do people talk about the government censoring iTunes when it’s a voluntary action from Apple and they practice self-regulation (like the MPAA or the ESRB). I also really like that Obi-Wan quote.
And all this talk of “violating my 1st Amendment rights” reminds me of something else Oliver Wendell Holmes (maybe) said, “You can’t (falsely) yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” There’s something called “clear and present danger”, which, it may be argued, some WN speech and music may create, like from the Skokie march (don’t remember if the march did, in fact, take place). As much as it pains me to say this, when George Bush said his “too much freedom” line, he was probably right.
on August 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Those talking about censorship plainly don’t know what censorship is. Censorship stifles the information before it gets out. What we are talking about here (and what SPLC is trying to accomplish) is holding the speakers accountable when their irresponsible abuse of their 1st ammendment rights when it endangers the public. When that happens, it is the duty of law enforcement to make an example of such a person.
If someone sullied your reputation over the radio, wouldn’t you take them to court for slander? I’m willing to bet those babies crying about censorship would be the first to do so.
on August 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
So white supremacists should be filtered out, as well as rap music, as well as christian music, as well as any music which might conceivably make some wimpy little censor happy coward feel threatened? Those that are calling for censorship here are those who let others define their own morality as they do not have the courage to define their own. i don’t listen to the music that they want censored, but I support those people in their right to be able to have their own beliefs. In fact, I have more respect for those whose music this collection of cowards find offensive as their music at least has a spine. Those who cry for their censorship don’t have the courage to live in a free society. In making that choice, I have no respect for the censors.
on August 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
For Captainchaos –
So-Called ‘Racial’ ‘Purity’ of Blonde, Blue-Eyed Scandinavians a Myth (http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3699/print)
DNA testing for ethnicity (http://www.pathway.com/more_in.....5Qod0SovLg)
Until anyone can show me a genuine DNA test that proves that they are “pure white” (which I am certain there is no such thing; scientists can’t even come up with a definition of what race is!) then any arguments they want to make about being a “persecuted minority” are pretty much moot points.
on August 30th, 2009 at 8:28 am
What is all this talk about freedom of speech and the first amendment? No one here has advocated banning anything. Pressuring a private corporation to make responsible decisions about the types of products they sell is not censorship. Every newspaper, radio station, bookstore, etc., etc., etc., makes decisions everyday about what to publish or sell and what not to publish or sell. Those decisions are influenced in large part by said corporation’s beliefs about what will make its customers happy. How is that censorship? Nobody is banning anything. It’s not a violation of free speech and it most certainly has not even the vaguest relationship to communism.
Point number two: anybody who has the gall to claim that all rap music is hate music obviously doesn’t know jack about rap music. You are showing off your own ignorance and you sound like a fool.
on August 30th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Real rap music is extremely political. NWA and RATM are my personal favorites. Those idiots who advocate censorship would consider their music hate music. That is because the lyrics are superficially filled with messages that advocate destruction of the system. The gangsta rap is just crap. As far as censorship goes, the moderators on this site do a ton of it. What the MSM does is far worse than what you call censorship. It is nothing more than a propoganda and marketing machine. Which is why rap music died and was replaced by the bling-bling idiots.
on August 30th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Banning music is what Nazis and Commies do. It’s un-American.
The hatemongers WANT their garbage banned, so it will be more popular with kids.
I say, give them all the microphone cable they want…and they will hang themselves with it.
The free marketplace of ideas is still the best way to expose this garbage and ensure it ends up in the Dumpster where it belongs.
on August 30th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“Every newspaper, radio station, bookstore, etc… makes decisions everyday about what to publish or sell and what not to publish or sell. Those decisions are influenced in large part by said corporation’s beliefs about what will make its customers happy. How is that censorship?”
When the decision is made based on the content alone, rather than purely commercial considerations, then that IS censorship.
Like when WalMart issues censored versions of rap music.
BTW, I agree that all rap music is NOT hate speech. Some of it is actually quite good, and I’m an old white guy (who listened to Grand Master Flash back in the day)
on August 30th, 2009 at 10:07 am
“…when George Bush said his ‘too much freedom’ line, he was probably right.”
Hey, kensh1ro, your dry cleaner called. Your white sheet with the eyeholes is ready, but they can’t get the blood stains out of your brown shirt.
on August 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am
“then any arguments they want to make about being a “persecuted minority” are pretty much moot points.”
Then I would like to see you apply that standard across the board.
“Until anyone can show me a genuine DNA test that proves that they are “pure white” (which I am certain there is no such thing; scientists can’t even come up with a definition of what race is!)”
Race is an extended family, slightly inbred, which springs from a common source. We share genes and gene frequencies in common with lower primates and so on down the tree of life. Why not do away with those distinctions as well? But it may be argued, ‘Humans and lower primates cannot produce offspring if breed together.’ Well now, tigers and lions, though classified as separate species, can. Why not see to it that African elephants and Asians elephants are breed together, after all, there is a diminishing supply of both, so why not consolidate the stock? Because that would be an act of ideologically imposed nihilism which destroys bio-diversity which we are informed we should value, no? You see, it is precisely the unique genes and relative gene frequencies which make us who we are, both individually and collectively, and we wish to remain ourselves. And we have an evolved affinity for those most genetically similar to ourselves (genetic similarity theory); of course it would be that way for social animals who co-evolved in groups and depend upon one another for survival in their unique environments of evolutionary adaptation. Your whole enterprise is therefore immoral because it flouts the evolved basis of the moral instincts. That is unless you want to go with transhumanism, in which case I’ll say, ‘Fair enough.’
on August 30th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Captain Chaos – you are right in that there is no biological definition of race, it is an entirely social construct. This does not mean that it does not exist. Persecution is a social construct, success is a social construct, happiness is a social construct. None of these things have any basis in biology. They still exist. Economics exist. Politics exist. And persecution of minorities exists. It does not need a biological definition in order to be real. Let me guess – you’re white aren’t you? Hmmmm….
on August 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Also, the term “white supremacist” is misleading. It assumes on the part of the one who asserts it a natural or divinely inspired hierarchy of valuation. For a serious Darwinist there can be no such thing, there is not god, nature is oblivious and therefore does not give a damn. It is in fact eurocentrism. Just as the contention that homo sapiens sapiens are “superior” to the “lower” primates is anthropocentrism. But you see, all the value that there can be to our existence is what we are evolved to value, to value our own survival, the propagation into future of what we are. The alternative is masochism slouching towards nihilism. Or, transhumanism, which would only serve the will to power of the personal preferences of those in power. There you have it.
P.S. Unless one of your will come out and plainly state human groups do not in fact exist, or if they do have no evolved affinity for co-ethnics, or if they do have said affinity it can and should be extirpated in them, and apply this standard across the board, and not just towards those of European descent, your hypocrisy and implicit genocidalism will have been exposed. No way around that.
on August 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Actually there’s nothing “misleading” about the term–”white supremacist”. Technically its more of a pejorative referrence to someone who generally associates themselves with pro-white idealogy hence–interests as in neo-Nazism/white power/white nationalism et al. Or in your word–”eurocentrism”. You can call is a PC as if its a “politically correct” term. But in its general usuage–its basically a denigration of an unpopular political belief. In fact, “white supremacist” is so often used as more as a vitriolic insult rather than any referrences to the vague concepts a “captainchoas” noted above. So your analogy is way off the base. And sorry, I’m not a “Darwinist” in that regard.
on August 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“you are right in that there is no biological definition of race,”
I’m afraid self-identified ethnicity can be genetically correlated to a degree of about 99% with the individual’s population of ancestral origin. Even the Swiss of Italian, German and French ancestry form discernible clusters when tested and are therefore identifiably genetically distinct. Try telling a forensic anthropologist or medical examiner there are not clear morphological and skeletal differences as well. We enjoy a physically distinct existence, and these have real world, civilization impacting consequences aside from the aesctetic formality of preserving fair hair and eyes – though the latter is not nothing for I would hate to see what is beautiful pass from this life, the only life we have.
“Let me guess – you’re white aren’t you? Hmmmm….”
I’m of Northwestern European descent.
Further, there is the question of the adaptiveness of what is apparently the Jewish group survival strategy. I not so long ago studied under noted Straussians, one of whom was portrayed as a minor character in the novel Ravelstein (no, he was not Bloom, but his good friend). The Straussians were the only men who seemed to me to take seriously the question of what it means to be a man and what is the good life. Now in his first lecture he all but came out and stated his belief in the biologically based ability of the peoples that did create, to create, Western Civilization. He also expressed the importance to himself of his Jewishness. Now, this man, these men, are atheists and believe the especial virtues of the Jewish people are genetically endowed – obviously. I experienced him as a palpably descent man and one who was once a brilliant scholar, though then on the downside of his mental abilities.
We all know, though I’ll bet few would have the courage to state it, what influence he and his ilk had in taking our country to war; and just why they did that – to secure the existence of their beloved Jewish people. I cannot fully blame them, I know what it is to love one’s people. Their support for open borders here, and not in their own homeland, is motivated by same. But it is folly. I would like to think that there is a space in which intelligent men of good will can discuss such things without resorting to the gutter tactic of smears which inciting the Pavlovian responses. To put it bluntly, the survival of the Jewish people is dependent upon the continued existence and good will of my race. There is no other people, certainly not the Chinese, who give a damn nor would put up with such nonsense. And if the Chinese were told they did not exist, had no interest in continuing to exist, nor were not a preeminent people from the perspective of civilization building capacity, they very least they would do is laugh.
All those ‘in the know’ know that is the truth, or well should.
on August 30th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Capnchaos,
You’re comparing humans to animals, it just doesn’t work. Lions and tigers are separate species; they are closely related enough to make children, but the children are sterile. That’s the definition of species, when two animals can mate and have viable offspring (IE – offspring that can in turn have their own children) then they are the same species. Therefore, there are no separate species of humanity, we can all have viable children together. That’s why it is ridiculous as well as sacrilegious to try to compare humanity to animals such as cats, apes, or elephants. It’s like trying to compare apples to oranges, or even more like trying to compare humans to amoebas. The logic just doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.
It’s your kind of WS white people that sometimes makes me ashamed of being white. I pray for God to bring the day closer when, because of integrated marriage, we can all say with certitude that none of us is “pure” anything but human. And we will always have diversity – no matter how much the human genome commingles, we will always have extremes of skin tone and facial features, and if you think any different it’s only because you have no idea how things work on a genetic level. We will never have a genetically homogeneous society, and praise God for that! Variety is the spice of life.
If you think that white people are an endangered “species”, all I can say is God can make it stop if he so desires. However, if it is happening because it is within God’s wisdom that it should happen, neither you nor I can argue with the wisdom of God. And if the day ever comes that He announces, in His wisdom, that the so-called “white race” is finished with, null and void, I’ll be with everybody else singing His praises in the streets that He was so wise as to wipe that stain off the face of the earth!
Now, chaos, you can go have your temper tantrum now, just don’t go getting’ all cranky enough to shoot any of my fellow humans.
on August 31st, 2009 at 10:12 am
By combining some of the earlier comments, let’s again note that the First Amendment protects free speech, and not the businesses that sell garbage. When more than 30 years ago the Nazis marched in Skokie, which has/had a large Jewish population including Holocaust survivors, their right to march, chant and hold up signs was, unfortunately, covered by the First Amendment. But if there’s no one there to hear their rantings (if I recall correctly, only a few people showed up) then their right to march is simply foolish. In a similar vein, if iTunes and Amazon continue selling this hate music, it reflects on them making poor business decisions. But if they insist on continuing to sell this kind of music, why not put some kind of notation or warning (like on CDs) that this music supports hate of minorities,letting its customers know that these very visible and successful companies peddle that kind of music, and letting others know what to avoid. Sure, a warning might attract the curious, but hopefully they won’t spend the money to buy that music. Maybe the anti-hate site can start a petition asking iTunes and Amazon to quit peddling this smut. Nothing like bad publicity to get the public’s attention. (And, no I don’t subscribe to the PR notion that any publicity is good publicity.) Not when the company is accused of selling smut.
on September 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am
Either put the Buju Banton track back up or dump Skrewdriver along with it. I don’t support Steve Job Destroyer and Jeff Bozo’s corporate thuggery anyways. I support my local book stores and record shops as much as I can.
on September 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
If you want to exclude this type of music, you would have to go after RAP and HIP HOP as well. There are many HIP HOP songs out there that push for black power and are very racist towards others. Why go after one group w/o going after all of the groups???
on September 2nd, 2009 at 2:54 am
I don’t get this tendency by the SPLC lately to silence voices it doesn’t like. Lou Dobbs, now crappy skinhead music and so on, I expect we’ll see more.
You don’t stop ideas by silencing the expression of them, you stop them by confronting them with better ideas. The desire to control, silence, and snuff out competing views cannot be healthy no matter how awful those views are. Don’t become what you despise.
In fact, open expression should be one of our paramount values. Let every voice and every idea be heard. If you’re proud of your views and secure in their correctness, then you won’t be afraid when the other guy opens his mouth to speak.
on September 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
@Snorlax
What I was refering to was my idea that the KKK and the NSM have too many rights. It’s because of them that I feel that we all might lose rights, because some people (the KKK and the NSM) can’t seem to use it responsibly.
I hate any and all such groups and it’s deeply offensive that you would imply (even in a joke) that I was a member of such hate group.
on September 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Vick, you are talking of a free and open society. One brave enough to air opposing views and air their dirty laundry. No, these people here aren’t interested in that type of society. They prefer the tyranny of political correctness. Practising the double-speak of Orwellian infamy. It is a tyranny of our thoughts, not an education of our minds they seek. Subjugation, not understanding. It is the evil tyranny of the modern liberalism. I prefer the liberalism of the founding fathers, though in all actuality, I am an anarchist. That would be the most peaceful and fluid form of government. One that would practise freedom more, rather than the tyranny of modern governments. But, I would settle for a liberal dose of freedom and release from the infantile rants of idiots begging for government to cure some disease it created to begin with. Modern liberalism is to freedom as the plague is to good health. These liberals would rather be slaves than free. It is why they propose to enslave everyone with their fears of hate groups, hate music, and the like. They are truly lost and wissh not to find their way, but to lose everyone elee they can on the way. To hell with them. I am a free man. I was born free, I live free, and I will die free. As such, I will not tell anyone else what they must or must not listen to or do.
on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The refusal of the larger, more commercial sites to sell extremist music is certainly not a threat to the First Amendment rights of the producers of such stuff. As stated earlier, there are many markets available where such music can be peddled. The problem is not that, but rather a commercial one. The stuff sells…it is commercially viable and a real money maker for the sellers. And that is why it still exists on the larger sellers. It inflates the bottom line pure and simple. And that is why they will more ‘n likely continue to be sold big time.
on December 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am
This is simply an issue of economics. iTunes will host on the music store what is making them money. Rap or WP music, rock music or classical, if it makes them money then to host it on their site is a sound business decision.
I don’t necessarily agree with that business oriented mindset, but if iTunes were to remove all offensive music I would say a good portion of the music that people frequently buy would be gone. Lady Gaga, 50 Cent, Eminem, etc. I’m pretty sure that some of their lyrics can offend people.
I would also like to point out that on the iTunes music store if you want to buy “hate music” you have to go looking for it–it is not listed on their main homepage. Furthermore, if someone went looking for this music I feel comfortable in saying that they would be able to get a hold of it even if it wasn’t hosted on iTunes.
People often approach social problems by attacking the symptoms–in this case “hate music” (I put that in quotations because that’s not actually a music genre). However, people forget to attempt to understand why there are people out there who even feel like this in the first place. If we can foster a society in which people do not feel the need to feel this way, then perhaps no one would make money by selling “hate music.”
on September 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@ Jim
So I take it you pay no taxes, posses no driver’s license, pay no utility bills, don’t use US currency? Funny how you hold yourself up on a pedestal, but you’re just like everybody else, except probably less.
on December 22nd, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Missourians for Health and Education, productively collected for those
who have unsecured loans are quite similar to secured loans
terrificshorttermloans.co.uk/ And after posting the form the provider verifies
the small print dinners deposited for a bank account in
less than 24 hours moment
on December 27th, 2012 at 6:29 am
I quite like the angle! payday loans