Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Antitrust Theories for Giggling and Crying

The San Francisco Chronicle has the following story: "Green Day lashes out at Wal-Mart policy"

Wal-Mart will not "stock any CD with a parental advisory sticker." Instead, it requests a censored "clean" version. Green Day -- affronted by the request -- refused to provide one. Hence, Wal-Mart refused to carry Green Day's new album.

As open and shut as that seems, Green Day is outraged. "Guitarist Mike Dirnt said: 'As the biggest record store in the America, they should probably have an obligation to sell people the correct art.'" Lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong: ""If you think about bands that are struggling or smaller than Green Day ... to think that to get record your out in places like that, but they won't carry it because of the content and you have to censor yourself . . . I mean, what does that say to a young kid whose trying to speak his mind making a record for the first time? It's like a game that you have to play. You have to refuse to play it."

The "correct" art? I assume he didn't mean it. "A game you have to play"? I suppose. Like not cursing at work or wearing clothing in public? We have to play those games too.

I think the nub of Green Day's complaint is that they don't consider their album offensive, and they cannot fathom why anyone else would, and that the policy is therefore unfairly applied to them. But it's Wal-Mart that gets to make that call. Wal-Mart has to answer to its customers' expectations and shareholders' values. And even if Wal-Mart is a dominant music retailer, I find it hard to articulate a theory of how this policy "harms the competitive process." It strips no one of access to Wal-Mart's retail channels, expect perhaps an artist with Tourette's.

In the end, I have trouble understanding why the Chronicle ran this story. What is there to it beyond "Green Day's upset"? I suppose Wal-Mart bashing is a bit of a sport, but this seems particularly vapid for front-screen news. Then again, when I compare SFGate to the Washington Post's home page, I am shocked at how vapid the Chronicle's reporting and syndicated republishing has become. "Hobbit House"? "A night of erotic restraint"? "Lost some weight? Here's $20"? Those are current front-screen headlines. I note this so that when the Chronicle goes bankrupt, we remember that product quality was a factor.

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on May 21, 2009 (boomark / email).