(16)    Mon 12 Jun 95 23:20
By: Robin Murray-o'hair
To: All
Re: Tax on Slasher Films
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:f9a1 1eccba80
@MSGID: 1:382/1006.0 882C4C39
@TID: WILDMAIL!/WC v4.11  94-0279
RELIGIOUS KULTUR-GURU WANTS TAX ON "SLASHER" FILMS

by Conrad F. Goeringer

     How far will "family values" advocates go to make sure that
Hollywood and television pump out only the type of entertainment they
wish others to see?

     With Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole finding the film industry an
easier target to discuss than Bosnia or trade agreements, religious
conservatives are becoming increasingly bolder in their battle against an
entertainment industry they charge is peddling sex, violence, profanity
and blasphemy.  And perhaps the most dangerous proposal yet comes from
right-wing film critic Michael Medved, ironically the co-host on "Sneak
Previews," whose book "Hollywood vs. America" did much to reignite a
nationwide debate over censorship.

     Medved, who also serves as chief film critic for the New York Post,
proposed in his latest nationally syndicated column that certain film
makers be forced to pay what he termed a "slasher" tax to benefit the
victims of crimes.

     Of course Medved, and most "anti-obscenity" crusaders, inevitably
begin their diatribes insisting that they oppose government censorship or
that their particular nostrum is anything BUT censorious.  In fact, it's
called the "BUT Argument." "I'm not for censorship," declare the
cleanliness zealots, "BUT . . ."  In Medved's case, he suggests that
"Government (at the federal or state level) could encourage greater
responsibility from creators and consumers without denying anyone's right
to free expression."  He then goes on to say that since  certain movies
having violent or sexual overtones are addicting (another cooptation of
pop-psych lingo by the conservative right),  there are "precedents" for
taxing such movies -- such as warning labels on cigarettes or stiff
levies on booze.

     "The slasher tax would send a powerful message that society
disapproves and recognizes the long-term costs of these brutal
diversions."

     And who decides whether the proposed 50 cent or $1 per ticket tax
gets placed on a particular movie? Medved proposes "a panel of media and
psychological experts, similar to the film board already established in
federal legislation regarding selection of 'national treasures' film for
special protection and preservation."  This panel of Kultur elites -- a
flip-side of the elite Medved and other critics charges now run Hollywood
-- would have "clear, coherent guidelines."

     Right.

     Medved's first candidate for the "slasher tax" seems to be the box
office smash "Johnny Mnemonic," starring Keanu Reeves, and written by
cyber-punk godfather William Gibson.  "Johnny Mnemonic" is hot celluloid
right now with the online, computer crowd; Keanu plans a high-tech
courier who has crucial information downloaded into his head.  Gibson
told the latest issue of "Wired" Magazine that the movie deals with the
"politics of information" and that the film is "phrased as an
action-chase piece, but our real agenda is a little more serious than
that. We want to see him (Johnny) get the information for himself,
escape, turn the tables on the bad guys. . . . But in the end he does
something else and manages to become a human being in the process.  I see
it as a fable of the information age."

     Whatever the merits or faults of "Johnny Mnemonic,"  Medved calls
the production "vile, hyper-violent, altogether irresponsible film" and
suggests that nothing's wrong with slapping the "slasher tax" on it, so
that the movie "A Little Princess" would be a better bargain at the box
office.

     But if Medved sees "Johnny Mnemonic" as an orgy of violence, he says
that movies such as "Schindler's List" are altogether a different story
-- while violent, they should be exempt from the notorious tax.  "Context
is everything," says Medved.  "The slasher tax should be reserved for
those relatively rare releases than openly encourage simplemindedly
bloody solutions to life's problems."

     Medved's proposal typifies the growing tendency of political
advocates -- both right and left -- to turn to the government as the
agency of choice in enforcing values, options and behaviors in the
population.  The "slasher tax" also demonstrates how far people will go
in concocting schemes designed to technically circumvent free
expression, while not saying so in public.

     Unfortunately, it is too late to argue over  the civil liberties
implications of warning labels and other "sin" taxes.  The warning-label
syndrome may someday be seen as a symptom of a society of complainers and
whiners,  a culture where it became the responsibility of government to
"protect people from themselves."  Even the placing of warning labels on
records and CD's -- once considered extreme -- is now commonplace.

     But Medved bemoans the fact that Senator Dole, while firing the
latest salvo against Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment
industry, "offers no suggestions at all for governmental initiatives in
response to media degradation.  That's a shame, because justified fears
of censorship -- and a healthy respect for the First Amendment -- need
not altogether paralyze elected officials in the face of the worst
extremes in entertainment."

     But it does.

     Contrary to Medved and others who would advance a religious or
social agenda by tampering with the First Amendment, that amendment
exists BECAUSE of "extremes."  The First Amendment isn't needed to
protect movies like "A Little Princess," "Hoop Dreams" or "family
entertainment" so idolized by Medved.  It's there to stop people like him
from banning or trying to tax out of production films like Johnny
Mnemonic, or even some cheesy remake of "Friday the 13th".

     Cable, videos and other technologies have created a veritable bazaar
of entertainment options for all Americans.  There are 24-hours-a-day
"family viewing" networks, a Playboy Channel, Walt Disney movies, 'round
the clock sports events for couch-jocks, even an oldies channel.  There
are abundant alternatives for everyone and every taste.

     But perhaps the real goal of those who propose the sneaky,
"Censorship by the back door"-style of government control that Michael
Medved wants, is raw, naked political and cultural power.  Would the
"slasher tax" even work?  Medved has to admit that it wouldn't succeed
"any more than 'sin taxes' on cigarettes and alcohol have eliminated our
taste for tobacco or liquor."

     Then why have it?  Why even propose it?

     Perhaps it is to see just how much Americans will tolerate in the
dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

     In my book, that makes a guy like Michael Medved far more dangerous
that Jason the chainsaw freak.

                          --30--




---
 * OLXWin 1.00 * Dial-THE-Atheist at (512) 458-5731

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.11
 * Origin: American Atheists Online (512) 302-0223  (1:382/1006.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 850 851 890 943 270/101 280/1 31 333 396/1 3615/50

@PATH: 382/1006 29 91 92 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851
