home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
062590
/
06251011.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
6KB
|
119 lines
<text id=90TT1637>
<title>
June 25, 1990: The Rap Against A Rap Group
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
June 25, 1990 Who Gives A Hoot?
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 18
The Rap Against a Rap Group
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Anti-obscenity campaigners are getting as nasty as they wanna
be against raunchy music, but will juries go along?
</p>
<p> If things do not change soon for 2 Live Crew, the
dirty-talking Miami-based musicians may be spending more time
trying to beat raps than performing them. A federal judge in
Fort Lauderdale ruled two weeks ago that their double album,
As Nasty as They Wanna Be, is obscene--the first musical
recording ever banned by a court. Soon after, a Fort Lauderdale
record-store owner was hauled in by police for selling their
album. Then two members of the group were arrested for
performing at an adults-only nightclub in Hollywood, Fla. The
penalty in both cases could be a $1,000 fine and a year in
jail.
</p>
<p> Even fans of rap music may find it hard to rally around
Nasty, a danceable but dim-witted pop product that relies on
countless descriptions of oral sex and genitalia, not to
mention a knuckle-sandwich approach to women. But the moves
against 2 Live Crew come on top of the obscenity charges
against the director of the Contemporary Arts Center in
Cincinnati for mounting a show of photographer Robert
Mapplethorpe's work. Artists, writers, filmmakers and musicians
have to wonder whether these actions herald an anti-obscenity
campaign that could send them scrambling for cover.
</p>
<p> Until recently, authorities have been largely inclined to
stay clear of pop culture or artwork--areas where obscenity
convictions could be almost impossible to obtain--and
concentrate instead on hard-core porn. Los Angeles prosecutors,
by targeting materials that depict bestiality, defecation, sex
with children and the torture of women, won all 26 obscenity
cases they have brought since 1988. At the federal level, the
Justice Department secured 120 obscenity indictments last year,
up sharply from 26 in 1987. But the department's National
Obscenity Enforcement Unit has tended to focus on nationwide
wholesalers of the hard-core stuff.
</p>
<p> Despite its reputation for loosening the restraints on
sexual expression, the Supreme Court in recent terms has been
making things easier for the anti-obscenity prosecutions. The
court recently upheld an Ohio law that made it illegal to
possess child pornography. Last year it okayed the use of
powerful racketeering laws to seize the assets of
pornographers.
</p>
<p> Local prosecutors have also learned that they can flex their
muscles on a national scale, shutting down interstate porn
operators by bringing them to trial in conservative localities.
The New York-based Home Dish Satellite Network once beamed
X-rated films on its American Exxxtasy Channel to 30,000
subscribers around the country. It was driven into bankruptcy
earlier this year after a district attorney in Montgomery
County, Ala.--where 30 households received the service--brought criminal charges against the company's officers for
violating the state's anti-obscenity laws.
</p>
<p> But when it comes to material that can more plausibly claim
the status of art or pop culture, obscenity is still in the eye
of the beholder, and even in conservative localities juries and
prosecutors do not always see eye to eye. The Supreme Court
ruled in 1973 that courts can regulate expression only when the
average person, applying contemporary community standards,
would be likely to find that the material appealed mostly to
prurient interest, was patently offensive and was entirely
lacking in serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value. Under that difficult standard, a jury in Alexander City,
Ala.--a place that no one would mistake for Sodom--acquitted a record-store owner last February who had been
arrested for selling Move Somethin', an earlier album by 2 Live
Crew.
</p>
<p> The band has been arguing that the gross language in songs
like Me So Horny and If You Believe in Having Sex is part of
a black cultural tradition of profanity, exaggeration and humor
that has fed into rap. Lead singer Luther Campbell also charges
that race has been a factor in the harassment of his group. Why
is it, he asks, that the same record stores that are forbidden
to sell his albums still carry the slickly packaged dirty talk
of the white comedian Andrew Dice Clay? Sheriff Nick Navarro
says the difference is that no one has complained to his office
about Clay.
</p>
<p> Meanwhile, the campaign against 2 Live Crew is gaining
support. In San Antonio police officers ordered record-store
workers to remove Nasty from their shelves or face arrest. The
city council in Huntsville, Ala., where the band had scheduled
a weekend concert, hurriedly extended its anti-obscenity
ordinance to live performances. Onstage last week under the
watchful eyes of officials in Duluth, Ga., the band offered
only cleaned-up versions of its songs, while the sing-along
audience eagerly filled in the X-rated language. Then again,
the attempt to suppress 2 Live Crew has been good for business.
The Nasty version of their album, which had sold a respectable
1.7 million copies before the porn police swung into action,
was headed for the 2 million mark last week.
</p>
<p>By Richard Lacayo. Reported by Jerome Cramer/Washington and Don
Winbush/Duluth, Ga.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>