That is why Green Day saying no is so great. Unfortunately most don’t. They can’t walk away from the money.

I don’t see from your post where Wal-Mart is telling them they HAVE to give them an edited version.

That’s because my post doesn’t say that.

They are just choosing to not carry that particular one.

Wal-Mart didn’t just say to Green Day, “We are not carrying your new album”. For that matter, nor did they say, “Oh, by the way, if you happen to have an edited version, we’d be happy to sell that”. They demanded an edited version, or so the news articles reported. It’s like they want their cake and the chance to eat it, too.

Or the many customers that are going to complain that they are selling cd’s with that kind of profanity?

You mean all those customers who are complaining about the profanity-ridden R-rated movies they carry?

Wal-Mart could easily start selling pornographic magazines or paraphernalia that belongs in an adult only store. They could use your reasoning as well it’s up to the consumer to decide whether to purchase those items here.

If we want to use your example, then a parallel would be Wal-Mart demanding Playboy provide magazines without the nudity.

I’m not arguing Wal-Mart needs to carry Green Days new album. I’m arguing that Wal-Mart needs to not demand Green Day edit their content.

Each business has to draw the line somewhere.

So, for Wal-Mart, the line is no music with advisory warnings, but DVDs with nudity ,sex, explicit violence, and profanity is okay? That’s a weird place to draw a line.

I am fairly certain that Walmart stands to lose profit by not providing the uncensored version of the album

Lose profit, or miss out on gaining profit? I’m fairly certain they will not lose any existent profit by not carrying it.

I kind of think you are missing the link between the consumer and the artist because of your Walmart bias

Which bias is that?

I would also suggest that Walmart could care less about any kind of moral stance.

On that we agree.

Walmart was actually assisting Green Day by letting them know they won’t be carrying their album but offering them the option to censor their if they wanted them to carry it.

Offering? I guess that’s one way of looking at it.

I am fairly certain that Walmart stands to lose profit by not providing the uncensored version of the album so I am not sure where “businesses are trying to make decisions for them”. I think it really comes down to what the consumer is willing to pay for. I kind of think you are missing the link between the consumer and the artist because of your Walmart bias.

While I agree that an artist should have license to make what they want they do not have license to dictate that we sell it. I understand that you are not taking this stance but I suggest that Walmart was actually assisting Green Day by letting them know they won’t be carrying their album but offering them the option to censor their if they wanted them to carry it. I don’t see the strong arming in this.

Kim I don’t see from your post where Wal-Mart is telling them they HAVE to give them an edited version. They are just choosing to not carry that particular one. I am sure there are many other groups that they do the same thing to. They are telling them (from what I get) that they are not saying they will never carry their music or they are boycotting the group entirely just this particular cd. They are not telling them to clean up their act or take their rights from them. But they have to go by the bottom line.. who will carry the most weight with their decision? The very few customers who actually know who this group is and would even buy it? Or the many customers that are going to complain that they are selling cd’s with that kind of profanity? I would think they are going to listen to the latter.

They did not tell this group they can no longer make the same kind of music.. all the music they want to make the way they want to make it and who they want to listen to their music. They are leaving the group’s choice with the group.

Businesses have to draw the line somewhere. Wal-Mart could easily start selling pornographic magazines or paraphernalia that belongs in an adult only store. They could use your reasoning as well it’s up to the consumer to decide whether to purchase those items here. But no one is getting up in arms because they aren’t carrying those lines. And yet magazine reps etc could be saying hey it’s discriminatory. They shouldn’t tell us what to put in our magazines. If they carry one they have to carry them all.

Just as adult oriented stores would in all probability not carry Dora merchandise. Customers could say hey you guys are not carrying it. You should and let me make that choice of whether I purchase it or not. It’s the same principle.

Each business has to draw the line somewhere. It is what makes them stand out from the businesses that don’t care a single iota in what is right and wrong. As long as they make a dollar they couldn’t care less of who complains or who their customers are.

I was in Zellers a few months ago and I saw not one but 2 different women in 2 different areas of the store carrying one of those toy dogs in their arms. Actually one was in the woman’s arms one was in a purse sort of carry all with it’s head sticking out. I got upset. I went and spoke to the manager and asked him when did it become store policy to allow animals other then seeing eye dogs in the store. I told him that I might be just one customer and in the grand scheme of things it probably wouldn’t make a bit of difference if I never came back, but if they did not ask the women to leave, I was going to leave and not return. Shortly after I saw him with one of the women and she got mad but did leave albeit very noisily.

He made a choice at that moment of who had the greater power. The odd person coming in with a dog or every one else. I noticed the next time I was there that there now was a sign on the main entrance saying only dogs for the disabled are allowed in the store.

Same principle.

I applaud Walmart’s efforts to get artists (Whether tv, radio, or movie) to clean up their acts.

I don’t. Businesses should not be telling artists what do with their art, cleaning up or otherwise.

You choose what movies you go to or watch on your computers/tv so basically telling artists you won’t watch that movie because of the profanity or nudity or violence etc.

Right, and that choice should remain with the consumer. Consumers should be able to dictate what they want to listen to, watch or read based on their own morals and values. Businesses should not be trying to make that decision for them.

If they want to not carry it, fine. If they want to carry an already existing edited version, fine. But don’t demand an artist change their works for your business.

I wonder if the films Wal-Mart sells are all edited.

I assume that Kim was immaculately conceived… :P

Walmart is doing the same thing. You make an edited version and we will sell it. I tell people who swear in my house to not do it again if they choose not to comply with my rules they go and are not invited back. We watched a movie last week that was very good, not one word of profanity, not one moment of nudity, not one sex scene. When I was mentioning that to a friend of mine she said oh don’t be ridiculous and get over it. ALL good movies have those in it, it’s part of life. Well it’s not a part of my life. I figure if I refuse to rent or go see a movie that has those issues in them, then sooner or later the Directors, or musical groups or artists will get the point.

I have no idea who Green Day is so doubtful I would ever get anything from them but am assuming from your comments they are a musical group. Had I not read your post on Walmart’s stance I would have not known the group used profanity.

Kudos to Walmart although I am not a Walmart shopper preferring Zellers, I am glad they are making a stand.

Nudity and profanity are part of day-to-day life.

I have seen very little in edgy productions from the Hollywood machine as of late.