So, since I'm a juggalette I'm using this as as example. ICP's lyrical content is vulgar and violent and "negative". When a juggalo committs a crime why is the artist responsible for the occurrence? Back in Sept. of 1985 (I believe that was the year) Frank Zappa, Dee Snider, and a couple other artists were being sued because a kid committed suicide while listening to a song by Twisted Sister. His parents and the Parents Music Resource Center claimed the artist responsible because of the lyrical content. Snider argued this:

"There happens to be one area where I am in complete agreement with the PMRC, as well as the National PTA and probably most of the parents on this committee. That is, it is my job as a parent to monitor what my children see, hear, and read during their preteen years. The full responsibility for this falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us. Parents can thank the PMRC for reminding them that there is no substitute for parental guidance. But that is where the PMRC's job ends.The beauty of literature, poetry, and music is that they leave room for the audience to put its own imagination, experiences, and dreams into the words."
How is different in the case of ICP? The content may be more extreme but this statement from Dee Snider is absolutely true to this day.

I suppose this is a matter of opinion. Are you asking for legal opinions? Or just simple personal opinions?

It seems to me that your question is really a question of why is it that the Insane Clown Posse is not held responsible for their lyrical content. I'm sure there are several instances where someone has tried to hold them responsible.

There are always cases of blame being placed in the wrong place. Video games are another great example.

I had to look it up: Juggalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I had to look it up: Juggalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Haha. I used to listen to Insane Clown Posse in high school. Bein' from the midwest, I was more exposed to the whole thing. Kind of silly lookin' back on it. But I'm sure most Mods and Punks think the same way. :-P

Im just looking for opinions. Im a juggalette and I know all the typical arguments I was just interested in seeing how other people look at it.
Video games are a very good example though.
The main reason for this post is that juggalos charged with crimes have attracted a lot of media attention. Fox news was particularly unhelpful in their take on juggalos by making it seem like we are some sort of crazy gang or cult. (For the record its neither if you haven't followed the argument )
I live in CA and the gang task force is now profiling juggalos as gang members. They haven't caught me yet but best believe I will fight them on that.
To give a quick explanation on what it is- its kind of like a religion. The music is strictly entertainment but it has an almost therapeutic effect for those who relate to the artists. We have our own beliefs but we don't discriminate or judge anyone else. Anyone can be a juggalo or juggalette if you have the mind for it. Its about self-reformation and supporting family and friends. Any juggalo who has committed or committs a crime isn't supported in any way by a real juggalo. The same thing that christians preach we do, just not in the same way.
Something that the media doesn't tell you is that within the juggalo family we have had conflicts about who's really down for the clown or not. (I don't understand why) A lot of kids wander into stores like Spencers or Hot topic and see a hatchetman or ICP merchandise and get it cause it looks cool. The look and characteristic appeal to some kids but they don't bother to learn anything about the culture behind it. Basically some people say that they are juggalos but in actuality they don't know what a juggalo is.

To clarify the question, I was wondering how is it that ICP can't use the same argument because it's the same case as the one I mentioned. Just a different generation.

Well, I think it is a stretch to say that it is the same case. It is a similar concept: the influence of music over impressionable minds.

However, ICP's music (at least on the surface) promotes violence and a certain style of dress and attitude. A gang is similar to this. They are a close-knit pseudo-society who promote violence, certain styles of dress and attitudes. But you have to keep in mind that it is not illegal to be simply associated with a group of people. It is illegal ACTION that people are "caught" for. Just because you listen to ICP and other artists of Psychopathic Records does not mean that you will be "caught".

Being a former listener of the music I know that the music can have deeper meaning to it, but an extremely large fan base was not aware of this until the release of The Wraith: Shangri-La where they announced the religious basis for their music. If you read Behind the Paint, Violent J's (Joe Bruce) autobiography you will even read more about where the "religion" originates.

To make the argument that one cannot be considered a "Juggalo" if they commit a crime actually goes against what Joe Bruce wrote in Behind the Paint. He actually has sections that Joe Utsler (Shaggy 2 Dope) writes about how to rip off stores and make quick cash.

So really, it's not fair to compare Twisted Sister to ICP. While I agree that it is a parent's job to censor what their children are exposed to, the other side of it is that if a child mirrors an artist's work completely, there is a point where an artist must at least acknowledge some responsibility.

After all, it is usually an artist's goal to create some kind of impression, and that is just what ICP has done to many people... be it good or bad. And when one member calls himself "Violent J" and the lyrics contain things like, "Fantasizing, dramatizing, re-enacting MURDER MURDER," one can find it quite difficult to argue that they don't have at least something to do with violence.