
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, June 28, 1990                   TAG: 9006290680
SECTION: A-12                    PAGE:    EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DISTASTEFUL? WHAT ABOUT BILL OF RIGHTS?

THE JUNE 12 editorial ridiculing a federal judge's ability to determine the absence or presence of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in a 2 Live Crew album is typical of the media.

The editorial upholds the group's rights in jealous support of the First Amendmemt, come hell or high water. However, the editor uses the words "tasteless" and "distasteful" in reference to the Crew's "As Nasty As They Wanna Be," and adds that it is "distasteful enough not to be republished in most newspapers."

Come, come now! Why didn't the editor cloak himself with the First Amendment and print the lyrics he must feel have literary or artistic value that the Florida jurist couldn't comprehend, and explain such values to his culturally ignorant readers?

Of course, minors read newspapers, and the editor may feel he should shield them from the "distasteful" contents. But minors gain access to the Crew's albums just as they do to alcohol and tobacco. And the editor could shout "freedom of speech" rights if there were any objections.

The editorial points out that no public funds are involved in the Crew's album production, but the media vehemently support the National Endowment for the Arts' public funding.

However, no medium has come forth with any explanation of cultural or artistic value in homosexual photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's revolting and degrading photos. (I have freedom-of-speech rights to use those adjectives, incidentally.)

Should child pornography be covered by the First Amendment?

As for criticism of those the media think might be treading on First Amendment rights: They do protest too much, methinks! F.D. BOY LYNCHBURG

by CNB