Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why Is iTunes Selling White Supremacy?

By Sonia Scherr, SPLC's Hate Watch. Posted August 31, 2009.


iTunes has removed songs deemed homophobic, yet allows white supremacists to peddle their hate on their website.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
15 Signs American Society Is Coming Apart at the Seams
David DeGraw

DrugReporter:
When It’s Crunch Time at College, Students Turn to Adderall
Erik Hayden

Environment:
20 Weird, Crazy Ideas for Helping the Earth

Food:
The War on Soy: Why the 'Miracle Food' May Be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare
Tara Lohan

Health and Wellness:
Pharmaceutical Giant Paid $500,000 to Psychiatrist Who Used Chicago's Poor as Guinea Pigs
Christina Jewett and Sam Roe

Immigration:
Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue
Janet Murguía

Media and Technology:
Is Right-Wing Media Hustler Trying to "Blackmail" the Obama's Attorney General over ACORN Videos?
David Edwards, Muriel Kane

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
New Right-Wing Craze: Using Bible Quote to Pray That Obama’s 'Days Be Few'
Amanda Terkel

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Hey Guys, Don't Want Kids? A Vascetomy Is Probably the Way to Go
Anna Clark

Rights and Liberties:
Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody -- Violent Deaths Are Now Following Evictions, Foreclosures and Job Losses
Nick Turse

Sex and Relationships:
How Abstinence-Only Programs Perpetuate Dangerous Stereotypes
Martha Kempner

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Army Sends Mom to Afghanistan, Infant to Protective Services
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Sonia Scherr

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

“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.”


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: racism, white supremacists, itunes

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Why limit freedom?
Posted by: uncertain on Aug 31, 2009 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the trash spouted by these white supremacists is so awful, let it fall or fail on its' own merits (or lack thereof).

Once people start deciding who is allowed to say what and when, and who is allowed to listen to who, all freedoms start to tumble like dominoes.

Or is it that -- like the one-time Bush-cheerleaders who praised the PATRIOT ACT, preemptive military strikes, indefinite detention without trial, who are now terrified at what those laws mean for them now that Democrats have them at their disposal -- do you people honestly think that there will never, ever be another Republican in public office anywhere who will use laws designed to limit the free expression of ideas against you?

If you don't like Skinhead's music, don't buy it. Boycott. Vote with your dollars. But don't presume that just because your favored branch of the War Party is currently holding the reigns that you have the authority or the clout to start outlawing certain types of speech that you don't like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: proffordisabilities
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: Birdland
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: Zackjk
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: Jeff in CNY
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: AZLBRAX07
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why limit freedom? Posted by: Bambi
WORD-FOR-THE-DAY ... " WHITE PRIVILEGE "
Posted by: dave1616 on Aug 31, 2009 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... Okay Childrens ... Yeessss - Milk-Break is over ; Now , gather 'round , boys and girls ... Very goood ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom from negativity
Posted by: jejer on Aug 31, 2009 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If everything is positive around you, and you grow up in an environment of love. thats what you will emulate. we have to move past this belief that limiting hate is un american......its time to evolve! if that means admitting the founding fathers were imperfect then so be it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There's no such thing Posted by: brunowe
» RE: There's no such thing Posted by: jejer
» RE: Foreverhope Posted by: uncertain
» RE: There's no such thing Posted by: brunowe
» RE: There's no such thing Posted by: HoboHomo
» So.... Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: So.... Posted by: jejer
they should allow both
Posted by: hms2004 on Aug 31, 2009 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They should allow the homophobics and the white supremacists to sell their crap. Freedom of speech. If it's garbage then people won't buy it, but people need to decide for themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: they should allow both Posted by: owleyes
» RE: they should allow both Posted by: desidid
More censorship!
Posted by: mjt on Aug 31, 2009 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the authoritarian dictatorial view. Censorship solves problems in society. More censorship -- few problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More censorship! Posted by: AZLBRAX07
Censorship doesn't work...it only romanticizes the shit
Posted by: ETSpoon on Aug 31, 2009 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think CDBabay has the right approach. Sell the skinhead crap, turn over whatever tiny profits made to anti-hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

As long as it remains above ground, in the disinfectant of sunshine, the stupidity of skinhead music can be dealt with...through humor. I mean, artistically this crap's so bad it's laughable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» are you fucking kidding me? Posted by: foreverhope
not just the majors
Posted by: littlepitcher on Aug 31, 2009 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Found Skrewdriver on Lala.com.
I'll suggest turning over moneys derived from hate-group music to a charity antithetical to their values. Thanks--that's a superb idea--turn their weapons against them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CENSORSHIP IS NOT FREE SPEECH!!!
Posted by: AZLBRAX07 on Aug 31, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I despise ANY form of homophobia or racism (and not just White racists!), I am just as equally against ANY form of censorship…which, even when invoked by “well-intentioned” busybodies, is totally against responsible Freedom of Speech.

My very closest friend of over 25 years is a secular Jew. On occasion, we have been around morons who blithely voice some kind of anti-Semitic sentiment. I, of course, get in such people's faces and give them hell. My friend, however, never says a word in her own defense. When I asked her why she remains silent, she explained it to me this way: most people won’t voice their true anti-Semitic feelings if they know that they are in the presence of a Jew (except for the goose-stepping “Heil Hitler crowd, of course!) and, since she doesn’t look or act particularly “Jewish”, she would rather let people express themselves honestly…so she can know how they REALLY feel.

As a non-Jew, I will continue to mock, denounce and harass anti-Semites whenever they crawl out from under their slime-covered rocks and express their twisted views. I will react the same toward racists, homophobes and any other kind of bigot I encounter.

However, my dear friend has a point: don’t censor their right to spew their hatred. They are entitled to exercise their brand of Free Speech…and I, in turn, am just as entitled to rip them to shreds with mine!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree 100%. Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: I agree 100%. Posted by: AZLBRAX07
HEY I TUNES! STOP RAPING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO MAKE A FEW $$$$$! N/T!!!!!!
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 31, 2009 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.......................

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economic Censorship Is Still Censorship
Posted by: mikeblack on Aug 31, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea of "It's not censorship because they're free to sell their music elsewhere" is economic censorship. People throw a fit when Wal Mart refuses to sell music it finds objectionable, but when it's something they find objectionable they're all for it being pulled from retailers. Hypocritical much? I know that "I hate minorities" songs are far more offensive than Wal Mart not selling a CD with a Parental Advisory sticker. But since somebody somewhere will always find something offensive, you cannot set precedents to censorship because you open a huge can of worms.

The truth is that you have to be emerged in their racist subculture to even know this stuff exists. They're not on the radio or MTV, nobody is going to hear their songs and suddenly become a racist. They come to it because they had the feelings of hate already. And banning the music isn't going to ban feelings of hate. Plus this stuff sells so poorly who even knows it exists outside of SPLC articles. This is the only publicity they get.

Do I like the music? As a Jew, of course not. But I'd rather see the first amendment survive in tact than 500 skinheads be deprived of their lousy, talentless, poorly recorded music. You guys should invest in gaining actual musical talent and song writing abilities if you want to recruit more people through music. Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you make me want to barf. Posted by: foreverhope
2 Different Things
Posted by: redbridge on Aug 31, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legal censorship or Corporate Decision making?

Kinda creepy to be confusing Apple with the government. But pressuring iTunes to be 'corporately responsible' would seem the most effective means of combating white supremacist music. It seems to have had an effect on Glenn Beck's sponsors. And it worked with the homophobic genre(?) at iTunes.

Censorship by law is a very different matter. Grab your pitchfork matter.

And FWIW, the cdbaby method of directing revenue to anti-hate groups is irony in motion. Use the skinheads' profits to fight their message. Brilliant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why combat free expression? Posted by: Tweck9
Yeah, we all have free speech.
Posted by: leafsong1 on Aug 31, 2009 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really doesn't matter that corporations control the mass media, because it is entirely possible to speak your mind without being on cable TV or the radio. Afterall, it's a just right to free speech. Making it nearly impossible for anyone to hear you is not at all the same thing as silencing your voice. Yes, let's give corporations online the same power and inclination to silence dissent that broadcast corporations now enjoy. Let's use the despicable nature of hate speech to stomp on whatever remnants of the First Amendment we find to be still effective. Let us organize around a plan to help the plutocracy beat us down with our own ideals like a truncheon. That's how we will save democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get A Life
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 31, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you actually think Apple actively filters the millions of songs on it's servers? They go respond to complaints- especially if they get enough of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive nonsense
Posted by: leonardfeingold on Aug 31, 2009 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right wing kooks are castrated people; they have no influence; after in spite of the KKK, we got rid segregation, denial of voting.

However, who does have inlfuence. It is the universities which are fill with anti-semites; hate ISreael and Worship muslems even they treat woman barbaracially and hang homosexuals; you don't hear that at the univ, but you do hear how evil ISrael is.
Universities have captive audiences; they have people like Ward Churchill another hero of the progressives; they unashamedly have no problem with murderer Che or Castor.

By the way some universities have supplied foot baths for Moslems and almost got away in Michigan with refusing to pick up passangers with alcohol or dogs(seeing eye dogs) That was a close call. Show where right kooks have that power.
So one cant get excited about the castrated
right wing nuts. They are cipher with no respect
from any sigificant part of US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Progressive nonsense Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Progressive nonsense Posted by: leonardfeingold
Who cares about iTunes? Just grab from the torrents and play from CDs.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 31, 2009 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That way we can defund iTunes and make them pay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once again, white "liberal" apologists don't get it
Posted by: Kym525 on Aug 31, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the First Amendment protects free speech, even that of neanderthal, sister-kissing skinheads and their ilk. I'm all for it.

However, what you apologist dunces FAIL to understand is that boycotting iTunes or making people aware of the kinds of music they sell IS NOT CENSORSHIP. It is using that same First Amendment to make one's grievances clear and allow for individuals to make decisions as to whether or not they should support a company that sells such "music". If you want to truly CENSOR something, then the skinhead music would be banned outright, which is not what I saw anyone in the article wanting to do.

This is the same apologist argument that people of color have had to deal with with the rise of Limbaugh, Faux News and other right-wing racist lunatics. White liberals telling us to "not worry about it" or "get a sense of humor" or "most thinking people don't buy their crap", at al. If liberals had had any balls back then, and truly understodd what the First Amendment meant, Limbaugh and his ilk wouldn't be as powerful as they are now.

Evil florishes when good people look away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The question should be...
Posted by: Tweck9 on Aug 31, 2009 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why is iTunes engaged in the anti-American activity of censoring peoples' expressions?"

There used to be a hate-group who wanted to censor heavy metal music because they deemed it 'obscene', 'evil', 'satanic', etc.

They were called the PMRC.

Systematic censorship is worse than any views that anybody expresses by way of their freedom of speech.

As another poster suggested, let it fail on its own merits.

Also, I'd like to point out that lots of racist and homophobic music was distributed by major labels prior to this apparent "infraction" against the PC anti-freedom-of-speech bigots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You may need to take that complaint to the labels...
Posted by: La Colombetta on Aug 31, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know someone who worked at iTunes, and they said that management pretty much has no policy on such matters, as it is all about sucking up to the labels and what they want. Makes sense, no?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

censorship
Posted by: tazdelaney on Aug 31, 2009 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is not the place of itunes, clearchannel or any other entity to censor what the public can hear, see, read.

the FCC was always a blatant attack of treasonous severity on the first amendment barring congress from in any way regulating freedom of the press or of speech and expression. period.

hate-speech and hate-crime laws, regardless how seemingly well-intentioned, are also unconstitutional and betray the 1st amendment in brazen manner. at any rate, legislation nor censorship will do anything but exacerbate these things. and if hate-speech and hate-crimes were really going to be prosecuted, most of the government, military, intelligence and general public would have to be imprisoned for it.

we'll only change human awareness at large and improve human rights with smart, artistic persuasion – not with a sledgehammer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: censorship Posted by: desidid
» RE: clarify I'm speaking Posted by: desidid
BRAVO!
Posted by: Axiom69 on Aug 31, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was wondering what kind of comments this article would bring and getting ready to knock people with a Constitution and freedom of speech lesson. Imagine my surprise when the majority of commenters actually recognized that these ignorant fools have the right to express their inbred views just as the rest of us have the right to make fun of them for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the eternal search
Posted by: BobPomeroy on Aug 31, 2009 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how far do we expect applecorps to go? do we expect them to be vigilantes? The bully rascists are anethema to me, but they are best countered directly rather than by proxy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dees Da Facts
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Aug 31, 2009 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Morris doesn't like anyone who rubs his self-inflated ego the wrong way. So he has his flunky write a paen to censorship on alternet. What's alternet doing trying to smash free speech? It's something, well, Nazis would do.

Alternet needs to ditch the PR bilge of the Montgomery Fuehrer. Too much SPLC filth spills onto this website. Morris Dees trust fund is not the purpose of progressive battles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the difference
Posted by: Alenna on Aug 31, 2009 5:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
between that and some of the violent, misogynist Gangsta Rap. You can buy "music" by Eminem and Snoop Dogg on ITunes too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What criterion do they use
Posted by: doctorsquared on Aug 31, 2009 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for homophobia?

I was able to buy Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms off iTunes; there is a line in "Money for Nothing" that goes

That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he's a millionaire


that always tweaked me a little bit, even though its context is that of an ignorant blue-collar microwave oven and refrigerator installer expressing his disdain over the perceived ease with which 1980's New Wave rockers on MTV got the money and chicks (for free).

iTunes should not censor any music, of any kind, in any way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What criterion do they use Posted by: tommymarx
Let's Just Censor Everything Not About Fuzzy Bunnies and Sunshine!
Posted by: snax on Aug 31, 2009 10:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apple needs to back off entirely from the notion that they are censoring anything. Prodigy got sued over their efforts at censorship, not because they did it, but because they did a poor job of it in spite of the suggestion to customers that they filtered out bad (libelous in this case) content. Apple could see a similar fate if they make any effort to market under similar guise.

The alternative is filter out virtually every rock album ever recorded because it is either sexist, racist, homophobic, or worse. It's a slippery slope, and censoring the material will not mitigate the attitude that creates and compels people to purchase it. Rather it simply forces it underground, away from public view - and more importantly, out of the spotlight of public scrutiny that can be so essential to exposing it for what it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet censorship? How weird.
Posted by: avlhostel on Aug 31, 2009 10:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this shocking.
We don't like nazi's so we block them from itunes?
Are we not still in America?
That sounds like what Nazis would do if they found your article, idiot.
Your suggesting that we censor instead of expose them?

Is this like when Al Gore's wife: Tipper of the PMRC went after Jello Biafra & Frank Zappa in the 80's?

Get you head out of your ass, and apologize that you would even publish such drivel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lojbud
Posted by: lojbud on Sep 1, 2009 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rather than asking a retailer to ban a particular offensive song, customers of these retailers need to boycott these sites. The most effective way to get the attention of a retailer is to hit them where it hurts the most - in the pocketbook. Glenn Beck and Faux News are feeling the sting right now as advertisers are pulling off of his shows because of the uproar that individuals have made to these sponsors over Beck's overt racism.
These retailers will always fall back on the argument that if they ban one type of music how will they decide on what not to ban. But hit them with sales losses and you'll get a whole different attitude from them!
If we're going to be stuck in a society that makes it's decisions on everything from healthcare to education to social programs based on the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR we need to get in the game and start deciding who is worthy of our dollars and who is not. The Republicans have, for years, tailored legislation to funnel money to their agenda and we have to act to make sure that every dollar we spend is going towards those people, businesses and corporations that believe in the same ideals that we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom
Posted by: ta2 on Sep 1, 2009 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The freedoms that are guaranteed in our Constitution have to be protected at all costs - even if it means that people that disagree with us get to enjoy those freedoms as well.

If I don't like the racist or homophobic music mentioned, I don't have to purchase it.

I'm a bit ticked off that iTunes has banned any music at all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boom Bye Bye
Posted by: Joni50 on Sep 1, 2009 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I looked up the lyrics

linked text = Linked text

It's not merely homophobic (which, it may be argued, is protected free speech) but is incitement to violence, directly encouraging the murder of homosexuals by gunshot or burning. It's pretty blatant.

The author of that song is a Rastafarian, which is an Abrahamic religion. As such, he would harbor fears that homosexuals may incur the wrath of his god upon the nation (like at Sodom) so it's the duty of the faithful to do whatever they feel necessary to purify themselves of that which would incite their god's wrath. This is a similar mentality to that which led to the murder of Dr. Tiller.

By the way, the Abrahamic commandment "thou shalt not kill" seems to apply only to taking the innocent life of one's own countrymen. Foreigners and those deemed to be guilty of some crime are fair game. Hence, the ancient Isrealites could move into Canaan and kill

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just wrote to iTunes
Posted by: Bambi on Sep 1, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I buy a lot of music from iTunes .... so, as a customer, I can vote with my voice and my dollars.

If this sort of thing continues, I'll find another method to purchase music.

thanks for the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cecchini is right
Posted by: bcoblentz on Sep 2, 2009 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The quickest way to make music cool is to ban it. I can't attest to Skrewdriver or Brutal Attack but a lot of white supremacist / NS / 'uhh, we, uhh, just like antique uniforms' music is actually pretty good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

iTunes & Free Speech
Posted by: EricBischoff on Sep 2, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am long time supporter of Southern Poverty Law Center and I think they do great work, but I don't agree with this post. I don't think we should expect any company to figure out what is in the products that they sell for other people and to then become the content police. That is not their job. Who cares what lyrics are in these tunes. I think our energy is better spent on other things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell me - or tell yourselves . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Sep 2, 2009 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell me what it is about what your opposition says that terrifies you so? If he is as you say a mindless moron, capable only of a moron's feckless posturing and all the rest, why do you find it so necessary to silence him?

Why not let him rant and rave, the better to show anyone not already aware of his half-witted noise, how stupid and ignorant he is and how nonsensical his "ism" is?

Or does it make more sense to you than you care to admit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A better question "Whyis Itunes NOT selling homophobic music?"
Posted by: rickiey on Sep 3, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't want Itunes censoring any music, whether it is white supremist, homophobic, or even the Backstreet Boys (although I can make a case for the last one..ugh!!)

I want music to be available, no matter WHAT it is, including and especially music that I disagree with.

Hiding it only makes it more appetizing to the sheep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement