I'd ay it's more a question of "what will this encourage in other people" rather than "is this more sinister on a personal level".eazyflow wrote: How about this line from the same album:
“My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge / And I’ll stab you in the head, whether you’re a fag or les / A homosex, hermaph, or a trans-a-ves / Pants or dress? Hate fags? The answer’s yes."
Does that satisfy your criteria?
And besides, couldn't it be argued that lyrics condoning thoughts of violence towards specific individuals is in some ways even more sinister then those targeted at a large generalised group?
So in the case of Eminem above he's still just saying "I hate gays"> That's only the same as "we should kill all the gays" IF there is the implicit understanding that Eminem is a model to look up to. Is there not an element at least with Eminem where it's implicit that he's feeling this way because he's fucked up - not because he's a moral authority?
So someone saying "i hate X...because I'm fucked up" isn't a direct incitement in the same way that "kill all the X" is, because it doesn't have the implication "you should also hate X".
I'm not saying it's completely without grey areas, but I do think it's more than just music which expresses unpleasant ideas.
I think the logic behind it, in terms of the laws against this sort of thing: it's the point where the value of free speech is beaten by the right for minorities to avoid persecution. So it's not "does this express ideas which make me uncomfortable", it's more "does this encourage ideas and actions that could cause damage to others".
(I don't think Discogs are necessarily doing this for legal reasons, but I think the logic is the same.)
But that's the question I'm asking. Why should Discogs not use their own discretion to set where the line is? Why should it be totally free from restriction?eazyflow wrote: Yeah, you're right - Discogs is a privately owned site and they can restrict what they like. I'm just questioning whether they should.