Wal-Mart sued over Evanescence lyrics (1 Viewer)

[Robert_eb]

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2...M_Exclude=Juno

Is anyone elso bothered by this?

Maybe we can burn some books we find objectionable.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Since when is the f-word dirty?

Glenn

 

[Todd Hochard]

I have but one thing to say- Man, f*ck that.

People are getting dumber by the minute.

 

[Phill O]

Wal-Mart can kiss my A#%, That is why I spend my money at Target and other places. That and of the top ten billionairs in the USA five are from the Wal-Mart family. They don't need anymore of my money.

But it still is a dumb a#% lawsuit. If they are so offended they should ask for their money back or an exchange of the CD.

 

[Nate Anderson]

This is ridiculous. Not just because of Wal-Mart's censorship policies (not to mention demanding that studios provide them with pan-and scan versions of their movies), but the fact that people are so willing to sue over the dumbest crap.

Please, please, let this get thrown out of court!

 

[Magnus_M]

When you think people can't get more stupid, they do something like this...and prove me wrong!
Something have to be done about all these frivolous lawsuits, taking up the courts time with sh*t like this should be punishable.

If he felt that the cd was inapropiate for the daughter there's an easy solution, return the disc and get your money back (or another cd).
If your not satisfied with that alone then: a) Complain to the store manager. or b) complain to the regional/national office etc.

They have a policy (not to be confused with a law or even a promise) that they will not have offensive language on the cd's they sell, if one "slips through the cracks" it's unfortunate but nothing that should (or imho even could) be punishable in a court of law.

For (up to) $74,500 he should be forced to listen to material with offensive language an hour or two, each day, for the remainder of his life.

What's next, suing the church for all the oppression that could be found in the bible?
Or better yet, why don't WE sue Wal-Mart for NOT carrying cd's containing offensive language (seems just as stupid and would therefore be ok in his book I guess). :rolleyes

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ok, maybe that is a dirty word. At thirteen, what are the odds that the daughter hasn't heard it before? 1 in a million? More? Is it going to hurt her blasted virgin ears?

This mess has so many questions about it that it isn't funny.
First, did the daughter know that word was on that CD?
How many readers at 13 would play a new CD in front of their parents?

Ok, take a moment out. Maybe this is one of those "church-going families" - where everybody sticks together 100% of the time. Is this the kind of a group that she'd listen to? (This obviously wasn't one of those many 'christain groups' that are springing up around the country).

Error! Error! (right out of Star-Trek). Ok, they weren't a christian family, but still, the parents are having a fit. Maybe it is just one of those parents - the same ones that protested Jackson at the Super Bowl?

I'm also sure that this very same daughter has been watching PG-13 flicks at the movies for several years now, where nothing gets bleeped out!

On to the CD. It didn't have a sticker on it. That isn't the store's fault. I'm also sure that the record company knew if it required a sticker or not. If it did and the sticker wasn't on there, then it is just a manufacturing defect. The store can't be blamed for that. The record company could order a recall, but all that will do is increase sales!

If you worked at Tower or any other record store, would you immediately pull them from the shelves? No way! Ok, maybe to move them up to the front counter!

I can see the store sign now. "CD recalled! We have to ship them back tonight so this is your last chance."

The next day they'll be up for sale on E-Bay as limited collectors items.

But hey, the parents knew about the word being there, and instead of just complaining, they bought it and sued. I'm hoping their judge dismisses it.

Glenn

 

[Eric_L]

The lawsuit is frivilous - there are other ways to remedy the situation. I do agree that he has a grievance. The CD was not marked adequately (no parental warning at all) for content. Parents rely on retailers to be honest about the labeling of the contents.
It would be no different than if the consumer thought they were buying Coke and found the cans filled with beer instead. There is nothing wrong with beer, but it is not what the label said was in it. Sure, they can take it back for a refund, but that is only if they discovered the beer to begin with. Should a parent have to sample every can that is marked 'Coke' to make sure the contents are the same as the lable? I don't think so.

The same goes for broadcast TV. I am all for looser standards on adult content, however the labeling has to properly indicate the contents of the show. Deviating from that is nothing more than bait&switch misleading advertising.

 

[ThomasC]

 

[Glenn Overholt]

When the article went on to say that the online 'sample' had been fixed (castrated).

Glenn

 

[Malcolm R]

While I agree that the lawsuit is frivolous, and would normally rant against it myself, Wal-Mart has been on a censorship crusade against "naughty words" in music for years and years (while hypocritically doing nothing about all the vulgarities, nudity, and violence readily available in the movies they sell).

So if this now bites them in the ass, I'm all for it.

 

[Matt Stone]

What a lame-ass lawsuit. I think it's pretty stupid for a parent to think they can completely shield their children from all things possibly offensive, but even more idiotic is the fact that they're willing to sue over it.

"We're really upset that our daughter heard the word "fuck" ...but do you know what would really make up for it? A big-ass FUCK-WAD of money!"

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Next they'll be suing their town over the use of the word on the streets. I hope this gets turfed by the courts pronto.

 

[Tim Hoover]

IIRC, the CD will be marked as containing explicit lyrics if the words in question are used repeatedly and in a vulgar manner. One f-bomb won't get it so marked...

Look at PG-13 movies. You can say the f-word up to three times before you get bumped up to an R rating.

 

[Bryan X]

That is pretty lame. It's not like they said "Ass Wookiee" or something bad like that.

 

[Eric_L]

So then I need to listen to all my kids Wiggles CDs to make sure Greg doesn't tell Anthony to "Fuckoff" any more than three times. I suppose that is acceptable.

 

[Jason Kirkpatri]

Excerpt from article:

It also seeks damages of up to $74,500 for each of the thousands of people who bought the music at Wal-Marts in Maryland.

Why am I not surprised? Sorry, but it seems as if Americans will sue anybody for anything. :rolleyes

 

[Bryan X]

It's the poor man's lottery.

 

[Jason Kirkpatri]

Unfortunately, the poor man's lottery is exactly what it seems like. Too bad.

 

[Magnus_M]

Considering the fact that the item was (in some way) mislabeled I don't see why the store manager wouldn't let him return it, if only to avoid the fuss that the "nagging customer" is likely to create.

Piracy reasons cannot shield a merchant from taking a "defective" product back, and this would be the case seeing how there was no "parental advisory"-sticker (which would make the store chose not to stock that item due to their policies).