The "F" Word: Should Walmart pay the money?
Martin Long
HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), which promotes
itself as a seller of clean music, deceived customers by
stocking compact discs by the rock group Evanescence that
contain the f-word, a lawsuit claims.
The hit group's latest CD and DVD, "Anywhere But Home," don't
carry parental advisory labels alerting potential buyers to the
obscenity. If they did, Wal-Mart wouldn't carry them, according
to the retailer's policy.
But the lawsuit claims Wal-Mart knew about the explicit lyrics
in the song, "Thoughtless," because it censored the word in a
free sample available on its Web site and in its stores.
The complaint, filed Thursday in Washington County Circuit
Court, seeks an order requiring Wal-Mart to either censor or
remove the music from its Maryland stores. 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.
"I don't want any other families to get this, expecting it
to be clean. It needs to be removed from the shelves to
prevent other children from hearing it," said plaintiff Trevin
Skeens of Brownsville.
Skeens said he and his wife, Melanie, let their daughter buy
the music for her 13th birthday and were shocked when they
played it in their car while driving home.
Wal-Mart, of Bentonville, Ark., has no immediate plans to
pull the CDs from its shelves, spokesman Guy Whitcomb told The
(Hagerstown) Herald-Mail. He said the company will investigate
the allegations. No hearing dates have been set.
"While Wal-Mart sets high standards, it would not be possible
to eliminate every image, word or topic that an individual
might find objectionable," Whitcomb told the newspaper.
He told the Herald-Mail that the song sample online was
censored by Walmart.com, a separate division of Wal-Mart.
Whitcomb didn't return telephone calls Friday from The Associated
Press.
The lawsuit also names as defendants Wind-up Records LLC,
the New York-based company that recorded the music and decided
not to apply parental-advisory stickers; and distributor BMG
Entertainment, a subsidiary of Sony BMG Music Entertainment,
of New York.
Sony BMG declined to comment on the lawsuit. Wind-up didn't
return calls from the AP.
The Skeens' lawyer, Jon D. Pels of Bethesda, said he aims to
"take this case national, even if that means going state by
state."
He dismissed Whitcomb's suggestion that Wal-Mart stores didn't
know about the censored version of the song. "They are a
multimillion-dollar corporation and they certainly can communicate
among their various entities," he said.
jls
"Martin Long" <ml...@originals.com> wrote in message
news:41BCDFBF...@originals.com...
>
> Skeens said he and his wife, Melanie, let their daughter buy
> the music for her 13th birthday and were shocked when they
> played it in their car while driving home.
>
rectal itch and heart palpitations and she's gone frigid and suffered from
dysmenorrhea. Both of them are suing for loss of consortium. It sounds to
me like at least $10 million in damages if the couple live through this
dreadful trauma long enough to collect.
Dave C.
>
> HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), which promotes
> itself as a seller of clean music, deceived customers by
> stocking compact discs by the rock group Evanescence that
> contain the f-word, a lawsuit claims.
>
> The hit group's latest CD and DVD, "Anywhere But Home," don't
> carry parental advisory labels alerting potential buyers to the
> obscenity. If they did, Wal-Mart wouldn't carry them, according
> to the retailer's policy.
>
> But the lawsuit claims Wal-Mart knew about the explicit lyrics
> in the song, "Thoughtless," because it censored the word in a
> free sample available on its Web site and in its stores.
Wal-Mart is notorious for banning CDs with explicit lyrics and/or only
selling edited (for content) versions of same. That is one reason I would
specifically AVOID buying music at Wal-Mart. I don't want a fricking
corporation editing my music, thank you.
It is ironic in the extreme that Wal-Mart is being sued for selling a song
with FUCK in it. This just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.
Wal-Mart has tried (WAY TOO HARD) to protect people who do not need to be
protected. And now they are being sued for the exact opposite reason.
If anything, they should be sued to STOP the censorship. -Dave
ameijers
>
> HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), which promotes
> itself as a seller of clean music, deceived customers by
I highly doubt it will happen, but it sure would be nice if this landed in
front of a judge with the brains and balls to throw it out of court BEFORE
it goes to trial, and to sanction the attorneys involved for filing a
frivilous lawsuit. I'm no fan of Wally World's censorship policy, and would
never buy music there, but common sense dictates a nasty word is gonna slip
through once in a while. Exactly how are the plaintiffs damaged? Because
their little darling heard a dirty word? Haven't walked the halls in junior
high lately, have they? Probably screwing the kid up worse with this
ludicrous over-reaction. If the words bother them that much, return the the
CD if allowed, or trash it, and tell the kid 'I know stuff like this is out
there, and you will be exposed to it anyway, but I won't have it in my
house.' At the absolute most, the plaintiffs should be due a refund of their
money. The concept of damages is absurd.
aem sends...
DC
100% clean? They just guarantee that they don't carry music with the
"explicit lyrics" tag, but it takes quite a bit of explicit lyrics to get
that tag. Even Sarah McLachlan's music contain an F word. It's like a PG
movie rating, it's not like it's going to be 100% clean.
I don't know why Walmart needs to claim that they didn't know that they
censored the song. They should just tell the parents that Walmart is not
their kids' babysitters.
larryb...@yahoo.com
> the music for her 13th birthday and were shocked when they
> played it in their car while driving home.
Nice of the parents to put the burden of parenting on Wal-Mart, instead
of getting on the internet and doing a little research themselves.
Unreal.
Jim
What gets interesting is that since they *do* censor and regulate what
songs they sell, they are going to have a much tougher burden
defending themselves. (IANAL) Taking some action and making a mistake
is often more harshly judged than taking no action at all.
Jim P.
Ram Samudrala
screening process, they're more liable than if they had chosen to not
interfere at all. Still, as a believer in market forces, I think the
plaintiff should take his business elsewhere rather than suing
Wal-Mart.
You have to love this country.
--Ram
DR RASTIS FAF00FNIK
" jls" <jls...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7h6vd.148136$jE2.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
see friends,watch TV or ride a public bus or train.....
Talk about sheltered life, wonder if she will live at home till shes 40????
jls
"DR RASTIS FAF00FNIK" <FAF0...@FAF00FNIK.ORG.org> wrote in message
news:vfDId.14268$5R....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Have you heard the latest? Since the last report, he has developed goiter
and coprophilia. He is horribly swollen. It is utterly shocking! And
she, the poor woman, came down with chronic Tourette's syndrome and is
required to be strapped onto a special appliance to keep her from clawing at
herself. All her hair mysteriously fell out and she has had to be fitted
with a wig. Of course, both of them are in seclusion except for visits from
the professionals. The damages are mounting astronomically. More
contingency lawyers have signed onto the case. The child is now a pathetic
ward of the state. And all because of sudden trauma due to exposure to the
F-word.
Paul Ely
from here!
Larry Bud
only
> selling edited (for content) versions of same. That is one reason I
would
> specifically AVOID buying music at Wal-Mart. I don't want a fricking
> corporation editing my music, thank you.
>
> It is ironic in the extreme that Wal-Mart is being sued for selling a
song
> with FUCK in it. This just goes to show that no good deed goes
unpunished.
> Wal-Mart has tried (WAY TOO HARD) to protect people who do not need
to be
> protected. And now they are being sued for the exact opposite
reason.
>
> If anything, they should be sued to STOP the censorship. -Dave
You illustrate why it's IMPOSSIBLE to please everybody all the time.
The problem is that consumers are the ones who get fucked over because
the cost of goods go higher to cover all these ridiculous lawsuits.
What we really need is tort reform.