Thursday, July 18, 2002

The Senate gave its anti-Ecstacy bill the acronym R.A.V.E.. Are they H.I.P. or what? Probably not. I bet they were thinking of F.I.S.T. or C.H.U.D. when they did it. Fortunately, the A.C.L.U. is getting involved: "[the ACLU attorney] argues that while there is no constitutional right to smoke crack, there is, in fact, a right to dance. Music and dance are protected forms of free expression, he said. By extending the crack house law to dance parties, the RAVE Act would discourage promoters from sponsoring this kind of art, he said."

(quoted from the Washington Post article)

Here's the petition to which the article refers. The Electronic Music Defense and Education Foundation ("EM:DEF") is trying to defend "innocent professionals in the electronic dance music business" victimized by The War on Club Drugs--here is their page opposing the Senate bill. The ACLU steps in again to oppose a California state bill, and once again helps to protect the rights of ravers.

Now here I am making a big fuss about ravers, when my buddy Sean Kelly hates them so much. And I should say that I like a lot of electronic music, but I have never been into the rave scene (and the stuff I like is not generally the type played at raves). Still I consider them an important sub-culture and they are citizens of the U.S.A which used to mean something. *weep*!

No comments: