Remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980s? Satanic abuse ritualists were lurking behind every corner. These secret Satan worshippers were working behind the scenes 24/7, intent upon abusing little children, indoctrinating older children, or ritually sacrificing your baby.
This phenomenon is classified as a moral panic. Sociologist Stanley Cohen coined the term in his book Folk Devils and Moral Panics, published in 1972.
In a January 2018 article written by Ashley Crossman titled “Definition of Moral Panic: Overview of the Theory and Notable Examples,” Crossman summarizes Cohen’s theory as follows:
“Cohen developed a theory of moral panic that outlines five stages of the process.
- Something or someone is perceived and defined as a threat to social norms and the interests of the community or society at large.
- News media and members of the community/society then depict the threat in simplistic symbolic ways that quickly become recognizable to the greater public.
- Widespread public concern is aroused by the way news media portrays the symbolic representation of the threat.
- Authorities and policy makers respond to the threat, be it real or perceived, with new laws or policies.
- The moral panic and actions by those in power that follows it results in social change within the community.
Cohen suggested that there are five key sets of actors involved in the process of moral panic. They are:
- The threat that incites the moral panic, which Cohen referred to as “folk devils”;
- Enforcers of rules or laws, like institutional authority figures, police, or armed forces;
- The news media, which breaks the news about the threat and continues to report on it, thereby setting the agenda for how it is discussed, and attaching visual symbolic images to it;
- Politicians, who respond to the threat, and sometimes fan the flames of the panic;
- And the public, who develop focused concern about the threat and demand action in response to it.”
While the Satanic Panic has subsided in its most frenzied form, in which we saw specialized law enforcement training as well as crimes attributed to Satanic ritual abuse, we still see the suggestion that there are “gateways” to Satanism we might want to avoid. Among these dark influencers:
Yoga
Astrology
Heavy Metal
Halloween
Dungeons and Dragons
Harry Potter
Pokemon
Animorphs
Lord of the Rings
Smurfs
Walt Disney/Disneyland
Thriller (Michael Jackson)
Beyonce (& various other pop stars)
Hollywood stars in general
An emerging moral panic involves accusing public intellectuals and YouTube stars as gateways to the alt-right. These folks, if not accused as confirmed card-carrying members of the alt-right (though they mostly deny this label) are often referred to as alt-right adjacent.
But what does alt-right adjacent or gateway to the alt-right even mean? There are no definitions for either term found on any legitimate websites and the term seems to be completely subjective. At this point, many articles are still explaining to the general public what alt-right means and who the prime characters are.
General characteristics of the alt-right:
Racism
White supremacy/White identitarianism/White nationalism
Anti-Semitism
Preservation of European-American culture and Western Civilization
Rejection of multiculturalism or pluralism
Preservation of traditional Christian values
Race realism
Anti-immigration/Anti-diversity
Anti-Islam
Targets youth by attempting to appear anti establishment and rebellious as well as intellectual
While the alt-right appears to be on the rise, why are those disassociating themselves from this ideology being pegged as “adjacent” or as “gateways”?
Can someone move you to the alt-right by simply exposing you to ideas? By debating current societal concerns? By examining both sides of a topical issue? By speaking to public figures you feel don’t deserve a platform? Or are you responsible for the way you digest the information? Are you responsible for actions you choose to take? Are you morally responsible for decisions you make? Or do you place the blame on someone else because some ideas are too dangerous?
In a 1995 article titled “COLD BLOOD,” journalist Frank Ahrens detailed the horrific shooting of Patsy Byers, a convenience store clerk shot, paralyzed and left for dead in Louisiana.
Surveillance cameras caught images of the shooter, a young hooded white female, stepping over Byers to access the cash register. Byers remembers that in that moment, the shooter said to her, “Are you dead yet? No? How do you open this?”
A tip led the FBI to Muskogee, Oklahoma, to arrest 18-year old Sarah Edmondson at the home of her parents, Jim and Suzanne Edmondson, part of a prominent political dynasty within the state.
Further investigation showed Edmondson, along with her boyfriend, Benjamin Darras, had murdered a man in Mississippi the day before for a mere one hundred dollars cash and some credit cards.
Civil suits were filed by the victims and their families against any future earnings the two might receive. Patsy Byers survived the shooting but was left paralyzed from the neck down.
The Natural Born Killers Lawsuit:
A summary of the allegations made in the Byers complaint:
According to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit,
Patsy Ann BYERS, et al. v. Sarah EDMONDSON, et al on July 26, 1995, Byers filed suit against Edmondson and Darrus for the damages sustained by Byers and her family as a result of the armed robbery and shooting.
In early March 1996, Byers filed a first supplemental and amending the petition for damages, adding Edmondson’s parents and several insurance companies as defendants.
In March of 1996, Byers filed a second supplemental and amending petition for damages, through which she named Warner Home Video, Inc., Warner Brothers, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Time Warner, Inc., Regency Enterprises, Alcor Films, J.D. Productions and Oliver Stone as additional defendants.
The new allegations asserted that Edmondson and Darrus “went upon a crime spree culminating in the shooting and permanent injury to Patsy Ann Byers as a result of seeing and becoming inspired by the movie ‘Natural Born Killers’ produced, directed and distributed by the Hollywood defendants.’”
In December of 1996, Byers amended her petition further to state that all of the Hollywood defendants are liable, more particularly, but not exclusively:
A) for producing and distributing a film (and marketing same on videotape) which they knew, intended, were substantially certain, or should have known would cause or incite persons such as defendants, Sarah Edmondson, and Benjamin Darrus (via subliminal suggestion or glorification of violent acts) to begin, shortly after repeatedly viewing same, crime sprees such as that which led to the shooting of Patsy Ann Byers;
B) for negligently and/or recklessly failing to take steps to minimize violent content of the video or to minimize glorification of senselessly violent acts and those who perpetrate such conduct;
C) by intentionally, recklessly, or negligently including in the video subliminal images which either directly advocated violent activity or which would cause viewers to repeatedly view the video and thereby become more susceptible to its advocacy of violent activity; 7
D) for negligently and/or recklessly failing to warn viewers of the potential deleterious effects upon teenage viewers caused by repeated viewing of the film/video and of the presence of subliminal messages therein; and
E) as well as for other such intentional, reckless, or negligent acts will [sic] be learned during discovery and shown at trial of this matter.
——————
A summary of responses made by the defense:
The defendants filed an objection, called “no cause of action.”
The defendants asserted that they owed no duty to plaintiffs to ensure that none of the viewers of the movie would decide to imitate actions depicted in the fictional film. The Hollywood defendants also denied that they owed a duty to prevent harm inflicted by others absent a “special relationship” obligating the defendant to protect the plaintiff from such harm. They further asserted that imposition of such a duty would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution.
A summary of the matter before the court:
Note: Courts across the nation have generally refused to hold filmmakers, producers, directors and/or promoters liable for injuries allegedly sustained from others imitating actions or scenes depicted in a film, television broadcast or magazine, or described in a song.
Other examples of dismissals:
–dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the publisher of a firearm advertisement in a magazine which advertisement allegedly caused a fatal firearm injury to plaintiff’s son
–dismissing plaintiff’s claim that the producer of a gang violence film was liable for the murder of plaintiff’s son who had viewed the film
–dismissing plaintiff’s claim that the producer of a gang violence film was liable for the shooting of plaintiff’s daughter by a third party shortly after both saw the film
–dismissing plaintiff’s claim that the broadcast of a hanging stunt on a television program caused the death of plaintiff’s son who tried to imitate the stunt
–dismissing plaintiff’s claim that the broadcast of a television program caused plaintiff’s son to be injured when the son imitated an experiment performed on the television program
The question of duty:
A cause of action requires that the accused had a duty to protect the harmed party. When no duty exists, a court will dismiss a petition as a matter of law for failure to state a cause of action.
Byers essentially contends that the Warner defendants owed her a duty to not produce this film in the form in which it was released and/or to protect her from viewers who would imitate the violent acts or crimes committed by the film’s two main characters and cause her harm.
The court stated that it recognized that in Louisiana, a defendant does not owe a duty to protect a person from the criminal acts of third parties absent a special relationship which obligates the defendant to protect the plaintiff.
The court determined the defendants had no legally enforceable duty to Byers to conform to a particular standard of conduct.
Negligence and intent:
It must be proven that the harmful act was negligent or intentional. If in fact, plaintiffs could have proven their allegation that the Warner defendants, through the creation and release of “Natural Born Killers,” intended to urge viewers to imitate the criminal conduct of “Mickey and Mallory,” the main characters in the film, then the risk of harm to a person such as Byers would be imminently foreseeable, justifying the imposition of a duty upon the Warner defendants to refrain from creating such a film.
The Issue of Free Speech Protection:
Freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is not absolute. There are certain limited classes of speech which may be prevented or punished by the state consistent with the principles of the First Amendment:
(1) obscene speech;
(2) libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like;
(3) speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute; and
(4) speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and which is likely to incite or produce such action.
Byers contended that the conduct of the Warner defendants in creating “Natural Born Killers” is not protected speech because it falls into two of the exceptions to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech: the obscenity exception and the incitement to imminent lawless activity exception.
To justify a claim that speech should be restrained or punished because it is (or was) an incitement to lawless action, the court must be satisfied that the speech (1) was directed or intended toward the goal of producing imminent lawless conduct and (2) was likely to produce such imminent conduct. Speech directed to action at some indefinite time in the future will not satisfy this test.
The Natural Born Killers case went through a variety of iterations based on appeals to higher courts, but ultimately all claims of liability against the filmmakers were dismissed.
————
Is Ozzy Osbourne Suicide Adjacent?
On October 25, 1985, a civil lawsuit was filed against John “Ozzy” Osbourne (“Osbourne”), CBS Records and CBS, Incorporated, Jet Records, Bob Daisley, Randy Rhoads, Essex Music International, Ltd., and Essex Music International Incorporated. The petition alleged that the defendants composed, performed, produced and distributed certain recorded music which the plaintiffs claimed proximately resulted in the suicide of their decedent.
Facts of the case: On Friday night, October 26, 1984, John McCollum listened over and over again to certain music recorded by Osbourne. He listened repeatedly to side one of an album called, “Blizzard of Oz” and side two of an album called, “Diary of a Madman.” These albums were found the next morning stacked on the turntable of the family stereo in the living room. John preferred to listen there because the sound was more intense. However, he had gone into his bedroom and was using a set of headphones to listen to the final side of the two record album, “Speak of the Devil” when he placed a .22 caliber handgun next to his right temple and took his own life. When he was found the next morning he was still wearing his headphones and the stereo was still running with the arm and needle riding in the center of the revolving record.
Plaintiffs alleged that Osbourne is well known as the “mad man” of rock and roll and had become a cult figure. The words and music of his songs and even the album covers for his records seem to demonstrate a preoccupation with unusual, anti-social and even bizarre attitudes and beliefs often emphasizing such things as satanic worship or emulation, the mocking of religious beliefs and death.
The message he has often conveyed is that life is filled with nothing but despair and hopelessness and suicide is not only acceptable, but desirable.
Plaintiffs further alleged that all of the defendants, through their efforts with the media, press releases and the promotion of Osbourne’s records, have sought to cultivate this image and to profit from it.
Osbourne in his music sought to appeal to an audience which included troubled adolescents and young adults who were having a difficult time during this transition period of their life; plaintiffs alleged that this specific target group was extremely susceptible to the external influence and directions from a cult figure such as Osbourne who had become a role model and leader for many of them.
Osbourne and CBS knew that many of the members of such group were trying to cope with issues involving self-identity, alienation, spiritual confusion and even substance abuse.
Plaintiffs alleged that a “special relationship” of kinship existed between Osbourne and his avid fans. This relationship was underscored and characterized by the personal manner in which the lyrics were directed and disseminated to the listeners.
He often sings in the first person about himself and about what may be some of the listener’s problems, directly addressing the listener as “you.” That is, a listener could feel that Osbourne was talking directly to him as he listened to the music.
One of the songs which John had been listening to on the family stereo before he went to his bedroom was called “Suicide Solution” which, plaintiffs allege, preaches that “suicide is the only way out.” Included in a 28–second instrumental break in the song are some “masked” lyrics (which are not included in the lyrics printed on the album cover):
“Ah know people
You really know where it’s at
You got it
Why try, why try
Get the gun and try it
Shoot, shoot, shoot” (this line was repeated for about ten seconds).
These lyrics are sung at one and one-half times the normal rate of speech and (in the words of plaintiffs’ allegations) “are not immediately intelligible. They are perceptible enough to be heard and understood when the listener concentrates on the music and lyrics being played during this 28–second interval.”
In addition to the lyrics, plaintiffs also allege that Osbourne’s music utilizes a strong, pounding and driving rhythm and, in at least one instance, a “hemisync” process of sound waves which impact the listener’s mental state.
Following these general allegations, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew, or should have known, that it was foreseeable that the music, lyrics and hemisync tones of Osbourne’s music would influence the emotions and behavior of individual listeners such as John who, because of their emotional instability, were peculiarly susceptible to such music, lyrics and tones and that such individuals might be influenced to act in a manner destructive to their person or body.
Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants negligently disseminated Osbourne’s music to the public and thereby
(1) aided, advised or encouraged John to commit suicide or
(2) created “an uncontrollable impulse” in him to commit suicide; and that John, as a proximate result of listening to such music did commit suicide on October 26, 1984.
In the remaining two counts, plaintiffs allege, respectively, that defendants’ conduct constituted
(1) an incitement of John to commit suicide and
(2) an intentional aiding, advising or encouraging of suicide in violation of Penal Code section 401.
In all four counts plaintiffs alleged that defendants acted maliciously and oppressively and thus are liable for punitive damages.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 26, 1984, the plaintiffs’ decedent, John Daniel McCollum (“John”), shot and killed himself while lying on his bed listening to Osbourne’s recorded music. John was 19 years old at the time, and had a problem with alcohol abuse as well as serious emotional problems.
Alleging that Osbourne’s music was a proximate cause of John’s suicide, plaintiffs filed suit against all of the named defendants.
The court concluded that plaintiffs’ pleading
(1) fails to allege any basis for overcoming the bar of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and expression and, in any event,
(2) fails to allege sufficient facts to show any intentional or negligent invasion of plaintiffs’ rights.
In the trial court’s view, the First Amendment was an absolute bar to plaintiffs’ claims. Nonetheless, the court did invite plaintiffs to seek leave to file a further pleading to see if that hurdle could be overcome.
A proposed second amended complaint was submitted and the court made its final decision based on those allegations.
DISCUSSION
1. The First Amendment Bars Plaintiffs’ Action
Our consideration of plaintiffs’ novel attempt to seek post publication damages for the general public dissemination of recorded music and lyrics must commence “with [the] recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media [including artistic expressions such as the music and lyrics here involved], is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and expression extend to all artistic and literary expression, whether in music, concerts, plays, pictures or books. “Entertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected.”
“[T]he life of the imagination and intellect is of comparable import to the presentation of the political process; the First Amendment reaches beyond protection of citizen participation in, and ultimate control over, governmental affairs and protects in addition the interest in free interchange of ideas and impressions for their own sake, for whatever benefit the individual may gain.”
It is settled that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Thus, to justify a claim that speech should be restrained or punished because it is (or was) an incitement to lawless action, the court must be satisfied that the speech
(1) was directed or intended toward the goal of producing imminent lawless conduct and
(2) was likely to produce such imminent conduct. Speech directed to action at some indefinite time in the future will not satisfy this test.
It is not enough that John’s suicide may have been the result of an unreasonable reaction to the music; it must have been a specifically intended consequence.
We can find no such intent or likelihood here. Apart from the “unintelligible” lyrics quoted above from “Suicide Solution,” to which John admittedly was not even listening at the time of his death, there is nothing in any of Osbourne’s songs which could be characterized as a command to an immediate suicidal act.
None of the lyrics relied upon by plaintiffs, even accepting their literal interpretation of the words, purport to order or command anyone to any concrete action at any specific time, much less immediately.
Merely because art may evoke a mood of depression as it figuratively depicts the darker side of human nature does not mean that it constitutes a direct “incitement to imminent violence.”
The lyrics sung by Osbourne may well express a philosophical view that suicide is an acceptable alternative to a life that has become unendurable—an idea which, however unorthodox, has a long intellectual tradition.
Plaintiffs’ argument that speech may be punished on the ground it has a tendency to lead to suicide or other violence is precisely the doctrine rejected by the Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana, supra, 414 U.S. at pp. 108–09, 94 S.Ct. at pp. 328 (the words “We’ll take the f–––––g street again (or later),” shouted to a crowd at an antiwar demonstration, amounted to “nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time”; words could not be punished as “incitement” on the ground that they had a “tendency to lead to violence”).
No rational person would or could believe otherwise nor would they mistake musical lyrics and poetry for literal commands or directives to immediate action. To do so would indulge a fiction which neither common sense nor the First Amendment will permit.
Osbourne’s music and lyrics had been recorded and produced years before. There was not a “real time” urging of listeners to act in a particular manner. There was no dynamic interaction with, or live importuning of, particular listeners. Likewise, no moral blame for that tragedy may be laid at defendants’ door.
Some active and intentional participation in the events leading to the suicide are required in order to establish a violation, such as furnishing the means for bringing about the death—the gun, the knife, the poison, or providing the water, for the person who himself commits the act of self-murder.
As the defendant CBS stated in its brief, the philosophical proposition that life is intolerable and suicide preferable has been frequently expressed. Illustrations cited by CBS include such recognized works as “Hamlet’s ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy, in which he lists human sufferings and declares that suicide is preferable to life [Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1]; [ ] the sixteen suicides in Shakespearian drama alone; [ ] Tolstoy’s novel, Anna Karenina, in which Anna, concluding life and love are a ‘stupid illusion’ and suicide the only way out, throws herself under a train; [ ] Sylvia Plath’s autobiographical The Belljar, in which she presents a passionate, reasoned defense of her own ‘rational’ suicide; [ ] Arthur Miller’s Pulitzer prize-winning play, Death of a Salesman, where Willy Loman, confronting failure of his dreams, defends his planned suicide as a ‘courageous’ way finally to achieve something and ‘takes more guts than to stand the rest of ․ life ringing up zero ․’; [ ] the operas of Puccini, Menotti and Verdi [Aida]; [and] [ ] the popular theme from the award-winning movie and later television show ‘M*A*S*H’, ‘Suicide is Painless ’․”
As another court observed in a different but clearly relevant context, “It is an unfortunate fact that in our society there are people who will react violently to movies, or other forms of expression, which offend them, whether the subject be gangs, race relations, or the Vietnam War. It may in fact be difficult to predict what particular expression will cause such a reaction, and under what circumstances.
Other examples of dismissals citied in this case:
–plaintiff was attacked and “artificially raped” with a bottle by persons who had recently seen and discussed similar scenes in the television film, “Born Innocent”
–plaintiff shot outside a theater showing a violent movie made by defendants which allegedly attracted violence prone individuals who were likely to injure members of the general public at or near the theater
–plaintiff partially blinded when he attempted to reproduce some sound effects demonstrated on television by rotating a lead pellet around in an inflated balloon
–minor plaintiff had become so addicted to and desensitized by television violence that he developed a sociopathic personality and as a result shot and killed an 83 year-old neighbor
The Ozzy Osbourne case, as with the above Natural Born Killers case, was dismissed by the court.
The original complaint was filed on October 25, 1985 and was decided on July 12, 1988.
—————–
Resources: