Can bands that glorify violence be held responsible for the deeds of their hard-core fans? Entertainment-industry executives are taking the question seriously, as are Pahler’s parents. The family sued the band and its record labels for wrongful death in 1996, after the boys’ obsession with Slayer came out in their statements to the investigators. In the suit, the Pahlers claim graphic songs like “Dead Skin Mask” and “PostMortem” gave the teenage Royce Casey, Joseph Fiorella and Jacob Delashmutt–now serving long prison sentences–step-by-step instructions to “stalk, rape, torture, murder and commit acts of necrophilia” on their daughter. Slayer “incited” the three young men, the suit says, with such lyrics as “I feel the urge the growing need/To f–k this sinful corpse/My tasks complete the bitches (sic) soul/Lies raped in demonic lust.”
Although the case has received little attention outside Hollywood, it’s got the industry worried. Having just fended off the Federal Trade Commission’s threat to restrict the marketing of violent videogames, movies and music to minors, entertainment executives have dispatched top lawyers to fight the Pahlers’ lawsuit. Codefendant Sony Music, Slayer’s record label, was concerned enough to hire leading First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams to represent the company. The lawsuit was filed in California state court after Pahler’s body was discovered in 1996, but had been delayed pending the outcome of the criminal trials of the killers, who eventually pleaded guilty to murder. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and restrictions on the marketing of violent music to minors.
The case is the latest in a series of controversial lawsuits seeking to hold entertainment companies responsible for their ultraviolent fare. In 1999, the Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the makers of Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” when a couple went on a shooting spree after watching the violent film. Earlier lawsuits, however, suggest the courts won’t hold performers responsible for the actions of fans. A Nevada judge in 1990 found that subliminal lyrics in Judas Priest songs were not the cause of the suicides of two listeners. Defense lawyers admit that some of the Slayer songs may be “repugnant” and “even repulsive,” but are not obscene and did not directly lead to Pahler’s death. On Dec. 4, a California judge is scheduled to hear arguments on whether the case should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds.
Music-industry leaders say the Slayer case could be costly. If the Pahlers obtain damages and limitations on the sale of Slayer music, other bands could be at risk. (Through its manager, Slayer declined to comment.) Danny Goldberg, the chairman of Artemis Records, which is not involved in the case, says it’s impossible for the courts or legislators to determine which types of music, movies and literature should be placed off-limits. With teenagers buying millions of raunchy records every year, Hollywood’s bottom line would become as imperiled as free speech. “It would have a devastating effect,” says Goldberg, if the Pahler case prevails. But attorney Allen Hutkin, who is representing the Pahler family, says the case is about corporate responsibility. “We’re not out to stop people from making this music,” he says. “We just don’t want them to market this to kids.” Slayer, and the recording industry, are nervously awaiting an answer.
