Image courtesy GMO Answers

In October of 2018, The Conservative Skeptic, aka Outwest @jeh7041, wrote an article titled, “Are GMO’s the Death Sentence We’re Lead to Believe?” https://consskep.com/2018/10/16/are-gmos-the-death-sentence-were-lead-to-believe/

 

Outwest wrote, “I go to the grocery store at least weekly and I’ve come to notice that almost everything I buy, has the notice on it that it’s non-GMO. Why? Where does this fear of science come from? There are absolutely zero scientific studies of genetically modified organisms that have been proven to be harmful to humans. None. Yet, there is a rising belief that there is.”

Even tuna. Yes, you read that correctly, Tuna companies are now probably virtue signaling that their products are non-GMO. Here’s a photo I took recently of a can of tuna:”

—————-

The US Department of Agriculture provides the following definition of genetic modification and GMO:

Genetic modification: The production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods. Some countries other than the United States use this term to refer specifically to genetic engineering.

Genetically modified organism (GMO): An organism produced through genetic modification.

—-

Worldwide, the following crops are approved for genetic modification.

• Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
• Apple (Malus x Domestica)
• Argentine Canola (Brassica napus)
• Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
• Carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus)
• Chicory (Cichorium intybus)
• Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)
• Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera)
• Eggplant (Solanum melongena)
• Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.)
• Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.)
• Maize (Zea mays L.)
• Melon (Cucumis melo)
• Papaya (Carica papaya)
• Petunia (Petunia hybrida)
• Plum (Prunus domestica)
• Polish canola (Brassica rapa)
• Poplar (Populus sp.)
• Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
• Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
• Rose (Rosa hybrida)
• Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.)
• Soybean (Glycine max L.)
• Squash (Cucurbita pepo)
• Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris)
• Sugarcane (Saccharum sp)
• Sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum)
• Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)
• Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)
• Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

The most common U.S crops approved for genetic modification are corn, soybean and cotton. Modifications include engineering to develop insect and herbicide resistance.

Per the FDA:

“The majority of GE plants are used to make ingredients that are then used in other food products. Such ingredients include:

• Corn starch in soups and sauces
• Corn syrup used as a sweetener
• Corn oil, canola oil and soybean oil in mayonnaise, salad dressings, breads, and snack foods
• Sugar from sugar beets in various foods

Other major crops with GE varieties include potatoes, squash, apples, and papayas.

Are foods from GE plants safe to eat?

Yes. Credible evidence has demonstrated that foods from the GE plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods.”

——–

So, I kept wondering about that tuna and why it would be labeled non-GMO if it was a meat product. Then I ran across this alert provided by TINA (Truth in Advertising).  The alert, titled “BUMBLE BEE TUNA, THE NON-GMO PROJECT AND SOY,” was issued on December 6th, 2018.

TINA explains that it is labeled non-GMO because “the product contains soy, an ingredient that the organization providing the non-GMO certification, the Non-GMO Project, says is at a high risk of GMO contamination as ‘the number one genetically modified crop in the world.’”

When a consumer contacted Bumble Bee to ask what the labeling meant, he was told by a company rep that, “It is the tuna that is a wild fed product… That is what the label is referring to. Not the soy.”

TINA contacted the Non-GMO Project to clarify the labeling. Indeed, the Non-GMO certification refers to the soy included in the Bumblebee product. But it gets more confusing from there.

The Non-GMO project, which requires a $70 fee to receive its seal of approval, explains further that Non-GMO does not mean GMO-free. According to its website:

Unfortunately, “GMO Free” and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology. In addition, the risk of contamination to seeds, crops, ingredients and products is too high to reliably claim that a product is “GMO Free.”

In fact, TINA notes, “In July 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Nestle USA for allegedly misleadingly marketing that an independent third party certifies products – including Lean Cuisine Marketplace frozen dinners and Coffee-Mate Natural Bliss creamers – as containing “No GMO Ingredients” when, according to the plaintiffs, the certification is not from an independent, third party and was actually created by Nestle to use as a way to promote products. Plaintiffs also claim that the company misleadingly markets that products do not contain GMOs even though many of the products are derived from GMOs. For example, the dairy in its products comes from cows fed GMO grains. (Latiff et al v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-6503, C. D. CA.)”

Various surveys say consumers prefer the non-GMO label and believe it to be healthier, despite the fact that the FDA has been approving GMO food products for 24 years.

Consumer concerns seem to come from social media memes and myths despite scientific evidence to the contrary, confirming that there are no long term harmful effects from genetically modified food products.

Interestingly, because of social media division on this topic, it has been an area where Russian propaganda and disinformation can slip right in. In a study titled “Sowing the seeds of skepticism: Russian state news and anti-GMO sentiment,” Russian influence campaigns were confirmed:

“Returning to our original interest in understanding the reason for unusually high distrust in the science behind GMOs, we found a number of instances in which Russian News articles cast biotechnology in a negative light and otherwise raised questions about the scientific consensus concerning biotechnology. The threat of Russia’s disinformation campaign is not limited to sowing seeds of division in the US and bolstering Russian economic power – there is also the potential to erode public trust in science, an institutionalized pillar of western intellectual tradition.” 

 

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1454192

Adding to all the confusion is that the USDA has very ambiguous labeling rules. In May, the USDA sought public input on new labeling regulations:

WASHINGTON, May 3, 2018 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture today invited public comment on the proposed rule to establish the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard mandated by Congress in 2016. The standard will provide a uniform way to offer meaningful disclosure for consumers who want more information about their food and avoid a patchwork system of state or private labels that could be confusing for consumers and would likely drive up food costs.

While labeling rules may soon change, the core issue seems to be lack of consumer education.

In a recent study titled “What Do Think About GMOs?, author Kevin Higgins, editor of Food Processing, writes:

“Concern about the impact of GMO ingredients on human health tops the list of reasons Hartman survey respondents gave for avoiding or reducing intakes of foods containing them. Many within the food industry view this concern with scorn, citing a litany of chemical analyses that have concluded there is no discernable difference between genetically engineered and conventional foodstuffs. Unfortunately, science cannot prove a negative, making it impossible for any science-based evaluation to conclude that there will be no long-term repercussions from GMO consumption. More to the point, science’s imprimatur doesn’t carry the weight it once did. Better than a third of the public believes scientists have little or no understanding of the issue.”

https://www.hartman-group.com/acumenPdfs/foodprocessing_com-What%20Do%20Consumers%20Think%20of%20GMOs.pdf

 

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.

1. Something or someone is perceived and defined as a threat to social norms and the interests of the community or society at large.
2. News media and members of the community/society then depict the threat in simplistic symbolic ways that quickly become recognizable to the greater public.
3. Widespread public concern is aroused by the way news media portrays the symbolic representation of the threat.
4. Authorities and policy makers respond to the threat, be it real or perceived, with new laws or policies.
5. 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:

1. The threat that incites the moral panic, which Cohen referred to as “folk devils”;
2. Enforcers of rules or laws, like institutional authority figures, police, or armed forces;
3. 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;
4. Politicians, who respond to the threat, and sometimes fan the flames of the panic;
5. 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:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1758714.html

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1271092.html#footnote_2

Photo of three saints at the Los Angeles Temple, Templo Santa Muerte

Santa Muerte means Saint Death. She is not a true saint of the Catholic Church, but rather a folk saint arising out of traditional folklore.

Santa Muerte is a female, a sort of girly version of the Grim Reaper. She is a skeleton figure carrying a scythe, but the way she is dressed is varied. Usually, she wears a shroud over her bare skull, but some Santa Muerte adherents dress her to their own specifications, sometimes even having an outfit custom designed.

Santa Muerte is often referred to as a narco saint, because she is considered to be popular among drug traffickers. However, ordinary people who have no involvement in the drug trade find her appealing because they feel she is non-judgemental and accepts her followers as they are, frailties and all.

Santa Muerte received a fair amount of press in 2009 when, in order to show strength against the drug trade, the Mexican Army was ordered to destroy roadside altars in Tijuana, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa.

Mexico City had a self-appointed head of the Santa Muerte religion who declared himself an archbishop. His name is David Romo and in 2011 he was arrested for kidnapping and extortion and now spends his days in a Mexican prison, despite having told his followers that praying to Santa Muerte had previously helped him avoid jail time.

Another character in the movement is Enriqueta Romero, also known as Enriqueta Vargas or Dona Queta, a native of Mexico City who displayed the first statue of Santa Muerte outside her home on Halloween in advance of the Day of the Dead in 2001. Dona Queta lives in Tepito, a neighborhood known for crime, gangs and violence. There is currently a monthly rosary gathering at this location, where adherents bring offerings such as cigarettes, flowers, fruit or marijuana. (Dona Queta, now in her 70s, has been plagued with health problems and has been recently hospitalized. Her son was murdered in 2008 and her husband was murdered in 2016, both in assassination style killings.)

In 2013, Santa Muerte received another boost in the press when Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture, publicly denounced the worship of the folk saint as blasphemy.

Other Catholic officials have followed suit. For example, in February of 2017, the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Angelo, Texas, issued the following:

Statement on Santa Muerte

February 28, 2017
by Most Rev. Michael J. Sis, Bishop of San Angelo

Involvement with Santa Muerte is spiritually dangerous and it is not Catholic in any way. It should be completely avoided. It is a perversion of devotion to the saints.

In 2013, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture, denounced the Santa Muerte practice as “sinister and infernal.” He called it a “blasphemy of religion.”

The cult of Santa Muerte has been linked to violent drug cartels and brutal ritual killings. While it is popular in Mexican prisons, it has followers in many walks of life in Mexico and in some parts of the United States. The principal sanctuary of Santa Muerte is in Tepito, Mexico City.

We must distinguish true saints from false saints and superstitions. Authentic saints are those found in the Bible and those who have passed through the official process of beatification and canonization by the Vatican. Santa Muerte is not one of them.

Rather than asking Santa Muerte for protection or favors, we should turn our life over to Jesus Christ, repent of our sins, make a sincere Confession, follow God’s commandments, and trust in the grace of God. Catholics and other Christians should get rid of any Santa Muerte statues, candles, or other paraphernalia.

In his Resurrection, Jesus Christ conquered death. Through our Christian Baptism, we share in his victory.

Unlike official saints who have been canonized by the Catholic Church, folk saints are the spirits of the dead considered holy for their miracle working powers.

Andrew Chesnut, a professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond is the author of “Devoted to Death: Santa Muerte, the Skeleton Saint.”

According to Chestnut, Santa Muerte is the fastest growing religion in the Mexico and the US and he estimates there may be as many as 10 million followers. (Before Archbishop David Romo headed off to prison, his estimate was about 5 million.)

However, Chestnut admits, attempts to quantify these numbers are impossible as many people practice this religion in secrecy.

Sales of Santa Muerte merchandise are brisk. Decals, candles, statues, coins votive candles, figurines, oils, potions and powders are only a few of the popular collectibles–and a quick Internet search shows that these items can be quite pricey. Particularly popular are red candles and red-colored rituals which ask Santa Muerte to make or improve love connections. In fact, there is a entire array of color symbolism in Santa Muerte, with black candles and prayers used to thwart or punish enemies.

Shops carrying Santa Muerte merchandise abound in Mexico and in the border towns in Texas as well as in L.A.

Santa Muerte worship centers are popping up here and there. The Templo Santa Muerte in L.A. is one example, complete with a store to buy even more baubles. http://www.templosantamuerte.com/

In Mexico, the population most enthusiastic about Santa Muerte tends to be blue collar, low income workers often with very limited education.

The dark side of Santa Muerte

Santa Muerte is referred to as a cult by the Catholic Church. In an article published in The National Catholic Register titled “Beware of the Cult of Santa Muerte,” Bishop Emeritus Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, Texas opines that, “People turn to this devotion for worldly help, for money, material benefits — even to commit crimes and to keep them from being caught for their terrible deeds. So it’s really a devotion to Satan to gain material favors: money, prestige, power.” Pfeifer also notes that the rituals are often similar to Catholic traditions, mixing masses and Catholic prayers with Santa Muerte worship in order to legitimize the ceremonies.

Pfeiffer adds that “in recent years, it has become the religion of the narcotraficantes (drug traffickers). And they are getting stronger and stronger, and they promote this devotion, especially in villages where there are poor people.”

Another factor, according to Pfeiffer, is that drug traffickers also put money back into their communities, providing cash for essential services to the poor and uneducated, making the people feel beholden to them for the assistance. Thus, the appeal of a narco saint may be enhanced by these customs.

But most worrying of all is evidence of Santa Muerte related murders. Although most have occurred among cartel members or inside prisons, a few have occurred outside the drug trafficking arena.

In 2012, authorities in the Mexican state of Sonora arrested eight people involved in “sacrificing” two 10-year old boys and one adult woman to make blood offerings to a Santa Muerte altar.

In November of 2018, a man in Tennessee claimed to have escaped a failed human sacrifice to Santa Muerte. The case is still under investigation.

A new website attempts to put Santa Muerte information and resources into one location:
https://www.internationalsantamuerte.com/