The Stage is Set

Remember the 1980s? Big hair, neon colors, and the rise of MTV – a time when music wasn’t just heard, it was seen. While music videos added a vibrant new dimension to pop culture, they also ignited a firestorm of controversy.

Heavy metal bands, with their wild costumes, rebellious lyrics, and stage theatrics, became the perfect scapegoat for concerned parents. Suddenly, these artists weren’t just entertaining teenagers – they were accused of promoting violence, Satanism, and all sorts of social ills.

Enter Tipper Gore, wife of then-Senator Al Gore. Alarmed by what she felt were dangerous messages in music aimed at kids, she teamed up with other like-minded women of Washington to form the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC). This group wasn’t messing around – they made a hit list dubbed the “Filthy Fifteen.” This list shamelessly called out artists like Prince, Madonna, and yes, even Twisted Sister. Dee Snider’s Twisted Sister anthem “Under the Blade” earned its place on the list, accused of promoting sadomasochism and violence.

The PMRC created a “Filthy Fifteen” list, targeting songs they deemed dangerous for youth.

The PMRC’s actions, whether you agree with them or not, set the stage for an epic showdown. In 1985, a Senate hearing was called to address the whole “porn rock” issue. It was time to decide: Where do we draw the line between artistic freedom and protecting young minds? This is where our protagonist, Dee Snider, complete with big hair and defiant attitude, enters the spotlight ready to rumble for rock ‘n’ roll.

Enter the Antagonists

On one side of the ring stood Dee Snider, frontman for Twisted Sister. This Long Island native, born Daniel Snider in 1955, found inspiration in the theatrical antics of Led Zeppelin and Alice Cooper. Twisted Sister began their rise in the gritty 70s club scene, breaking into the mainstream by the mid-80s. Snider’s outrageous persona – the teased hair, the outlandish makeup, the defiant sneer – made him a poster child for the heavy metal scene. However, behind the rebellious image lay a surprisingly sharp intellect, well-versed in philosophy and staunchly committed to artistic freedom.

His opponent was none other than Tipper Gore, wife of then-Senator Al Gore. Born Mary Elizabeth Aitcheson in 1948, Gore was no stranger to political circles. Her concern for the impact of music on youth ignited after her daughter was exposed to suggestive lyrics. In 1985, she established the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), rallying influential, politically-connected women to her cause. The PMRC meticulously dissected lyrics, zeroing in on references to sex, violence, the occult – heavy metal was a prime target.

The PMRC targeted heavy metal music for its content concerning sex, violence, and the occult.

It’s important to understand that Gore wasn’t some out-of-touch mom on a crusade. Her actions were driven by a genuine desire to protect young minds. However, her methods were controversial. Gore advocated for parental advisory labels and pressure on the music industry, a strategy that collided directly with Snider’s staunch defense of artistic expression.

The stage was set. Two opposing forces – the wild-haired rocker and the politically-savvy activist – were about to square off in a battle that would make history and ignite a debate on censorship and music that rages on even today.

The Washington Wives and the Filthy Fifteen

The battle lines were drawn, but things were about to get even more complex. Tipper Gore wasn’t fighting alone. In 1985, she assembled a formidable alliance: the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC). This wasn’t your average school bake-sale committee – these were the wives of powerful Washington figures, including Susan Baker (wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker) and Pam Howar (wife of a prominent realtor). They shared Gore’s concern about the increasingly explicit and potentially harmful content in popular music.

The PMRC didn’t just talk the talk—they had a plan. First, they compiled the infamous “Filthy Fifteen,” a hit list of songs they considered the worst offenders. It was a diverse collection featuring Prince, Madonna, Black Sabbath… and of course, Twisted Sister’s “Under the Blade.” But the PMRC’s objective wasn’t outright censorship. Their goal was to empower parents. They proposed a rating system (think of it like the MPAA ratings for movies) with labels like “X” for sexually explicit content and “V” for violence.

The PMRC’s “Filthy Fifteen” targeted songs deemed sexually explicit and potentially harmful to children.

This move, strategically calculated, put the pressure on the music industry itself. If the labels were adopted, parents could make informed choices and retailers might think twice about stocking the “most extreme” albums. However, the PMRC needed visibility and a powerful platform. To achieve this, they set their sights on Washington, lobbying for a Senate Committee hearing on the whole “porn rock” crisis. It was time to bring this debate from the bedroom to the boardroom and force the rock ‘n’ roll establishment to answer some tough questions.

Showdown in the Senate

All the pieces were in place. The PMRC, with their meticulously crafted “Filthy Fifteen” and political connections, had successfully pushed the issue of explicit music content into the national spotlight. In 1985, their lobbying efforts paid off. The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, chaired by Senator John Danforth, agreed to hold a hearing. The date was set: September 19th, 1985. This wasn’t just a debate – it was a showdown that would shape the landscape of music for years to come.

On one side, representing the PMRC, sat Tipper Gore, Susan Baker, and Dr. Paul King of the National Institute on Mental Health, who argued the dangers of violence and desensitization in music. On the other side, an unlikely trio of music world titans was called to defend rock ‘n’ roll’s honor. Dee Snider, wild frontman of Twisted Sister, brought with him a passionate defense of artistic expression. Joining him were the ever-outspoken Frank Zappa, a staunch opponent of censorship in any form, and John Denver, the beloved singer-songwriter, who struck a balance by supporting parental advisory labels.

The 1985 Senate hearing pitted the PMRC against musicians like Dee Snider, Frank Zappa, and John Denver.

The lines were drawn. The PMRC’s argument painted a grim picture of youth corrupted by explicit lyrics, pushing for stricter regulation and clear labeling of musical content. The artists, however, passionately defended the First Amendment. They argued that while they understood parental concerns, censorship wasn’t the answer. They emphasized that parents, not the government, should be responsible for what their kids listened to. This was a clash not just about music, it was a debate about the very limits of freedom of expression.

Snider Takes the Stand

The Senate hearing room crackled with anticipation. The PMRC, with their well-reasoned arguments and polished presentations, had made their case. Now, it was the rock star’s turn. Dee Snider, in full Twisted Sister regalia, took the stand. This was the moment the media had been waiting for – a clash between a rebel rocker and concerned Washington wives. Yet, Snider cleverly subverted expectations.

Instead of shouting or posturing, his testimony was calm and surprisingly eloquent. He was prepared, armed with a well-written statement and a sharp analysis of the situation. Snider’s opening salvo focused on the heart of the debate: the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, he argued, was the bedrock of democracy, and any infringement on artistic expression was a dangerous step.

Dee Snider argued that the First Amendment protected artistic expression and warned against censorship.

He then took the PMRC’s accusations head-on. Songs like “Under the Blade,” with its seemingly violent themes, were, according to Snider, grossly misinterpreted. The song was not about sadomasochism, but rather inspired by his guitarist’s real-life surgery. The PMRC, he argued, had rushed to judgment without understanding the context.

Snider stressed that while he respected parental concerns, the solution wasn’t censorship. The responsibility for what kids listened to should always fall on the parents themselves. His voice rose as he painted a chilling picture of a world where the government, not artists, had the final say on what could be created.

Snider’s poised, articulate performance did more than just defend his music. It challenged the whole idea that rock musicians were dangerous or unintelligent. His testimony became an iconic symbol of resistance against censorship, and even those who disagreed with Twisted Sister’s music had to acknowledge his intelligence and unwavering defense of artistic expression. While the hearing led to the infamous “Parental Advisory” label, Snider’s eloquent stance in favor of free speech resonated far beyond that day in the Senate.

Dee Snider’s Testimony

The tension in the Senate hearing room reached its peak. Dee Snider, fully aware that he was challenging powerful forces, had a well-prepared, passionate defense, ready to face the accusations leveled against him. Below is the part of his testimony:

“I do not know if it is morning or afternoon. I will say both. Good morning and good afternoon.

My name is Dee Snider. That is S-n-i-d-e-r. I have been asked to come here to present my views on “the subject of the content of certain sound recordings and suggestions that recording packages be labeled to provide a warning to prospective purchasers of sexually explicit or other potentially offensive content.”

Before I get into that, I would like to tell the committee a little bit about myself. I am 30 years old, I am married, I have a 3-year-old son. I was born and raised a Christian and I still adhere to those principles. Believe it or not, I do not smoke, I do not drink, and I do not do drugs.

I do play in and write the songs for a rock and roll band named Twisted Sister that is classified as heavy metal, and I pride myself on writing songs that are consistent with my above-mentioned beliefs.

There are many facets to this complex issue and time does not permit me to address all of them. However, my feelings are expressed for the most part by the August 5, 1985, letter to the Parents Music Resource Center from Mr. Stanley Gortikov, president of the Recording Industry Association of America.

This letter was a formal response to the PMRC petition of the RIAA. The only part of this document I do not support is Mr. Gortikov’s unnecessary and unfortunate decision to agree to a so-called generic label on some selected records. In my opinion this should be retracted.

Since I seem to be the only person addressing this committee today who has been a direct target of accusations from the presumably responsible PMRC, I would like to use this occasion to speak on a more personal note and show just how unfair the whole concept of lyrical interpretation and judgment can be and how many times this can amount to little more than character assassination.

I have taken the liberty of distributing to you material and lyrics pertaining to these accusations. There were three attacks in particular which I would like to address.

Accusation No. 1. This attack was contained in an article written by Tipper Gore, which was given the forum of a full page in my hometown newspaper on Long Island. In this article Ms. Gore claimed that one of my songs, “Under the Blade,” had lyrics encouraging sadomasochism, bondage, and rape.

The lyrics she quoted have absolutely nothing to do with these topics. On the contrary, the words in question are about surgery and the fear that it instills in people. Furthermore, the reader of this article is led to believe that the three lines she quotes go together in the song when, as you can see, from reading the lyrics, the first two lines she cites are an edited phrase from the second verse and the third line is a misquote of a line from the chorus.

That the writer could misquote me is curious, since we make it a point to print all our lyrics on the inner sleeve of every album. As the creator of “Under the Blade,” I can say categorically that the only sadomasochism, bondage, and rape in this song is in the mind of Ms. Gore.

Accusation No. 2. The PMRC has made public a list of 15 of what they feel are some of the most blatant songs lyrically. On this list is our song “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” upon which has been bestowed a “V” rating, indicating violent lyrical content.

You will note from the lyrics before you that there is absolutely no violence of any type either sung about or implied anywhere in the song. Now, it strikes me that the PMRC may have confused our video presentation for this song with the song with the lyrics, with the meaning of the lyrics.

It is no secret that the videos often depict story lines completely unrelated to the lyrics of the song they accompany. The video “We’re Not Gonna Take It” was simply meant to be a cartoon with human actors playing variations on the Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote theme, Each stunt was selected from my extensive personal collection of cartoons.

You will note when you watch the entire video that after each catastrophe our villain suffers through, in the next sequence he reappears unharmed by any previous attack, no worse for the wear.

By the way, I am very pleased to note that the United Way of America has been granted a request to use portions of our “We’re Not Gonna Take It” video in a program they are producing on the subject of the changing American family. They asked for it because of its “light-hearted way of talking about communicating with teenagers.”

It is gratifying that an organization as respected as the United Way of America appreciates where we are coming from. I have included a copy of the United Way’s request as part of my written testimony. Thank you, United Way.

Accusation No. 3. Last Tuesday a public forum regarding the lyric controversy was held in New York. Among the panelists was Ms. Gore. Trying to stem the virtual tidal wave of antiratings sentiment coming from the audience, Ms. Gore made the following statement: I agree this is a small percentage of all music, thank goodness. But it is becoming more mainstream. You look at even the t-shirts that kids wear and you see Twisted Sister and a woman in handcuffs sort of spread-eagled.

This is an outright lie. Not only have we never sold a shirt of this type; we have always taken great pains to steer clear of sexism in our merchandise, records, stage show, and personal lives. Furthermore, we have always promoted the belief that rock and roll should not be sexist, but should cater to males and females equally.

I feel that an accusation of this type is irresponsible, damaging to our reputation, and slanderous. I defy Ms. Gore to produce such a shirt to back up her claim. I am tired of running into kids on the street who tell me that they cannot play our records any more because of the misinformation their parents are being fed by the PMRC on TV and in the newspapers.

These are the only three accusations I have come across. All three are totally unfounded. Who knows what other false and irresponsible things may have been said about me or my band.”

If you’re curious to dive deeper into this historic moment, you can find Snider’s full testimony here.

Tipper Gore’s Case

During the hearings, Tipper Gore took her turn at the podium. Her focus zeroed in on specific rock and heavy metal lyrics, painting a disturbing picture of a music landscape filled with sex, violence, and hints of Satanism. It was clear that her concerns weren’t abstract – her motivation was personal. The PMRC, she explained, was born the day her daughter brought home a Prince album filled with suggestive lyrics.

Gore’s arguments weren’t about banning music outright. Instead, they were a plea for parental awareness and industry accountability. Parents, she said, deserved the right to know what was in the music their kids were buying – just like they could read the ingredients on a food label.

Tipper Gore argued music labeling would empower parents to make informed choices about their children’s music.

To Gore, the labeling system the PMRC proposed wasn’t censorship, but a way to empower parents. She passionately argued that graphic lyrics could make kids numb to violence, push them towards dangerous behaviors, or present toxic, unrealistic views of sex. While Gore didn’t deny the importance of parental responsibility, she believed the music industry also had an obligation not to market potentially harmful content directly to children. After all, not every parent has the time or understanding to vet every single album.

Gore’s case was heartfelt and, for many, convincing. She didn’t just attack or condemn; she offered a solution that seemed reasonable on its surface. The PMRC wasn’t a fringe group calling for bans. It was a coalition of concerned mothers who simply wanted to be informed.

Legacy and the Fight Continues

In the aftermath of the Senate hearings, a strange thing happened – nobody really won. There were no sweeping laws restricting what musicians could sing about. Yet, the PMRC did succeed in bringing the issue of explicit content to the forefront of American culture. As a compromise, the music industry agreed to a voluntary labeling system – the now-iconic “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content” sticker.

This solution seemed fair on its face, but its long-term impact is still debated. For some parents, it’s a helpful tool. To others, it’s either ineffective or, paradoxically, even makes certain albums more desirable for young listeners. The PMRC hearings ignited a conversation that hasn’t been resolved to this day. Is explicit content genuinely harmful, or is it a reflection of a world young people already experience? Whose responsibility is it to monitor what children listen to?

The “Parental Advisory” label emerged from the PMRC hearings and remains a part of the music landscape today.

Dee Snider’s testimony emphasized the crucial role parents play in guiding their kid’s media consumption. This view became a powerful counter-argument against outright bans, even if it didn’t fully satisfy those who wanted stricter regulations. The debate took on another dimension with the rise of the Internet and file-sharing. Warning labels are one thing, but the vast, unregulated world of streaming platforms raises new challenges when it comes to parental control.

This battle isn’t limited to just America. Similar clashes over censorship and musical content have occurred across the globe. The image of Snider, in full rock ‘n’ roll regalia, standing calmly before the Senate panel has become a symbol of the eternal struggle between creative freedom and attempts to curtail it. His intelligence and composure challenged the notion that rock musicians are unintelligent or subversive influences.

Snider’s passionate defense of the First Amendment is still studied and referenced in conversations on censorship and music. Within the metal community, he’s an inspiration – a reminder that even the most flamboyant or rebellious artists can, and often must, fight for the right to express themselves as they see fit.