tothetune | From The Editor's Floor: My Chemical Romance

Entry tags:

From The Editor's Floor: My Chemical Romance

HOMELAND INSECURITY: THE DAY MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE'S FRANK IERO MET THE MEN IN BLACK

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE are putting the final touches to their follow-up of 2007's majestic The Black Parade. During a break in the studio, guitarist FRANK IERO recalls some of the great highs and lows he experienced during their break. Some of those experiences--good and bad--revolved around writing, recording and touring with his side-project, LEATHERMOUTH, whose debut album XO, appeared on Epitaph earlier this year. The good was that he honed his home-recording skills, did a lot of writing (which has helped inform MCR's next disc) and became a maniac frontman while Leathermouth were on tour with REGGIE AND THE FULL EFFECT during the summer of 2008.

The bad? Well, as the guitarist has made clear in interviews, Leathermouth are his vehicle for unfiltered ranting (i.e. "Sunsets Are For Muggings," "Your Friends Are Full Of Shit"). But it was track No. 4 on XO, "I Am Going To Kill The President Of The United States Of America" (about George W. Bush), which earned Iero a visit from the Secret Service. Wondering what happens next?

"The government comes to your house, searches everything and talks to your wife for hours," says Iero, adjusting the sleeves on his hoodie. "Then you have to get a real expensive attorney to keep you out of prison for five years. I had a long talk with the gentlemen of the Secret Service. [It was the] straight-up dark suits, sunglasses, Men In Black-vibe--I thought they were going to do the mind-erase thing [like in the movie].

"They said, 'Why did you write the song?' And I told them the truth. I was on tour [overseas] with My Chem at the time, and every time I turned around, there were Anti-American rallies. I wrote a song from the standpoint of the rest of the world. It wasn't from my personal point of view--it was just from someone who sees warmongering going on. I wrote the song, and the title is as blatant as humanly possible, because I wanted it to be that way. The Secret Service asked, 'Do you think someone is going to hear this song and kill the president?' And I said if they're going to kill the president, they're going to do it without listening to this song. That's like saying everyone who reads Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is going to eat a baby. They didn't think that was too intelligent, so they said, 'Well, if you re-release the record with the song on it or perform the song live ever again, you'll be arrested."

What's really perplexing about the whole incident is how the agency even learned about the song in the first place. Iero says he's not sure who it was, but opines that it was a British writer who contacted the Office of Homeland Security looking for a comment. Clearly, Iero could've turned the whole thing into a massively public freedom-of-speech argument; now, he's just happy the whole thing is behind him. "I'm married and I want to have kids," he resigns. "I don't want to go to jail for five years." --Jason Pettigrew

source

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And here I thought the USA were the land of freedom.

(no, srly. FAIL, US GOVERNMENT. MAJOR FAIL.)

*snorts8

Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think.

Srly, talk about irrational responses, huh? IT'S JUST, LYRICS, YOU MORONS. It's not like Frank is an actualfax terrorist - and even if he were, he wouldnt be sitting on his ass JUST WAITING for the Secret Service to come get him.

The thing that sucks is that honestly? He can afford the lawyer. How many people get pulled in and thrown in jail because they can't?

I was thinking the same thing. "...what if he couldnt afford the lawyer? Would it be like in Rendition? D="

It happens all the time. There are a shit-ton of people in secret jails all over the fucking world (and yes, I'm referring to CIA and secret service set ups) that will rot in there without representation, because they aren't rich and famous-- at least rich enough that they can afford a nice lawyer to get them off hook for 5 years, and famous enough that they can't just "disappear" without a real uproar.

Ugh. Paranoia: a lot more dangerous than actual weapons.

I dunno if that works. I mean, Helter Skelter is just lyrics taken by a psychotic to influence the Tate-LeBlanc murders because he thought the Beatles were talking about the Apocalypse.

You never know how a person would take it.

I know that, but it wasn't the words that triggered them. They were already inclined to do something like that, sooner or later. All they needed was an excuse.

Yes and no. Some things can trigger a psychotic break in the more fragile populations.

Again, you can't necessarily control how someone interprets your music/television/etc. There's a lot of mentally ill people who get "messages" through music.

True, but people will always read certain things the way that is most convenient to them.
Honestly, I'd think that, for psychotic teenagers, Taylor Swift lyrics (about everlasting love, or whatever) or Romeo&Juliet would be a lot more triggering than lyrics about killing the president.

But again, you don't know who's listening to this music. Agewise, sexwise, etc.

True, but that cannot be used as an argument, because if that's taken as a justification, then nothing will ever be able to published/released again. Taking that particular line of thought in consideration, lyrics about killing the president would not be more dangerous about a orphaned kid seeking revenge agaisnt the psychotic bastard who murdered them; or about who teenagers who choose to rebel against their parents by marrying in secrecy and then committing suicide; or about how men are clueless of how badly they hurt girls, etc.

Sure, you can never predict how people are going to interpret what you write, but censoring the more obvious material is as effective as trying to block the sun with a fishing net.

They have to take anything threatening "I AM" statements like that as a possibility. Especially if they're being widely distributed for a profit. Sure, it sucks! Everyone gets that it sucks. But they will go after every angle that may lead to something. That's Secret Service's job. If they're taking something as a legitimate threat, it's their job to squash it.

But by that logic, you shouldn't create anything in case people take it the wrong way.

(no subject)

lovesongwriter.livejournal.com - 2009-11-24 16:42 (UTC) - Expand

Each person is responsible for themselves. Rock stars are NEVER responsible for how someone acts upon their songs; this isn't inciting a riot. If the lyrics were "YOU SHOULD GET UP RIGHT NOW AND KILL THE PRESIDENT" then it would be inciting a riot.

Not knowing how a person would take it is never a valid reason for censorship.

It wasn't censorship, it's being careful of threats. They HAVE to take everything seriously, especially mass distributed things. You can't pick and choose your threatening material.

No, it wasn't a threat. It was the expression of a desire in a punk song. This is America, we have a constitutional amendment that states that we have freedom of expression, and the only exceptions to that are libel, slander, and inciting riots.

The fact that those no longer apply, and that such scare and threat tactics are used, is proof positive of the damage that said president and his goonies have done. Not that any of the so-called freedoms we have have ever REALLY been our freedoms.

And they pick and choose their threatening material all the time, because I don't see a hell of a lot of people being visited by the CIA for saying the same shit about the current president. And they say it with a lot more threat behind it.

It was censorship because they are threatening him with forced silence if he performs or plays the song again. That's what censorship is. Period, end of.

Incidentally, I don't wish to argue this, so I'm leaving with that.

To be honest, I don't think it's that irrational. Sure, we know that Frank isn't a terrorist but they don't. They know nothing about him except that he wrote something that could be interpreted as a threat, so they went to sort it out because it's their job.

I understand what you mean, and I would agree, except for the part where they went to his home, went through his stuff, bothered his wife and threatened to arrest him if ever re-released that song/performed it again.

What would not have been irrational, their job and completely understandable? If they thoroughly investigated his previous work, called him upon, summoned him for a, idk, interview or something and cleared that up. That I could see as the government taking everything with a grain of salt and trying to separate harmless music from real threats to the president.

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about not letting him perform the song again. That seems a bit... I don't know, really. But I'm assuming they went through his stuff just to make sure he didn't have the means to actually kill the president, you know? You never can be too sure.

Again, I get that. But, invasive much? It's not like they had anything to back that particular thought other than a few lyrics.

Invasion of privacy and it's censorship. It is out and out censorship to tell a musician that they cannot perform a song or they will be forcibly silenced by being put in prison.

That is the very definition of censorship, and it makes the secret service no better than the Gestapo.

Which isn't to say I don't think they shouldn't have investigated, but it's like what bittersweetrick said above. There's a rational way, and then there's intimidation tactics pulled on his wife and him.

It's illegal to say that you are going to kill the president, which I'm sure is something that Frank knows and knew when he was writing the song. He still chose to write the song that way. Freedom of speech is still in tact - if he had even just titled the song differently there wouldn't have been a problem. He's allowed to say that he hates the president with all his heart and soul but you cannot explicitly say that you are going to kill the president. That's all there is to it.

That's not freedom of speech if saying certain things is made illegal. It's still censorship. Sanctioned by the government or not, it's censorship to prevent someone from voicing an opinion, desire, or intent.

Stating an intention means nothing, it's the action which follows it up. Iero never made any attempt to kill anyone.

(no subject)

thebiologicshow.livejournal.com - 2009-11-24 17:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tempore.livejournal.com - 2009-11-24 17:30 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only