More handpicked essays just for you.
Music censorship and freedom of speech
Music censorship argumentative essay
How constitutional and necessary is censorship in the music
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Against Music Censorship
Music censorship has been a major problem plaguing America for over fifty years. In 1957, Elvis Pressley was only allowed to be filmed from the waist up on the Ed Sullivan show (Nuzum 1). Plenty of controversy has taken places between then and now, but more recently it has become much more prominent in the media, and people and organizations are beginning to actually take a stand. For example, Island Records (owned by Disney) dropped the Insane Clown Posse just after their release of The Great Milenko and MTV actually refused to play Madonna's video for Justify My Love because it was considered too sexually explicit (Nuzum 1).
Music content is just one of the many issues that puts the First Amendment of our Constitution to work. On one hand people believe that lyrics should be censored so that people can be protected. And on the other hand, people believe that the First Amendment protects everyone's rights to free speech. Basically, it is a matter of whether lyrical censorship be accepted.
Many people say yes, that there should be censorship because lyrics from songs are telling our youth it is acceptable to participate in illegal actions such as murder, rape or drugs. These people believe that the lyrics actually drive people to become social deviants. In one case, the parents of John McCullom sued Ozzy Osbourne, because his song "Suicide Solution", "aided, advised and encouraged" McCullom's suicide (Nuzum 1).
C. Delores Tucker, chair of National Political Congress of Black Women, said, "No one and no industry should be allowed to continue the social and psychological poisoning of the young minds of this nation that occurs with the music industry" (91). This belief of musical content being "poison" is prominent all over America. During the 1970's, record burning was a popular way to speak out against music content, and today protests are quite popular. Other ways of stifling these problematic artists may be through the pressure of having to use a parental advisory label or legislation passing bills. The head of the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression, Jim D' Entremont, explains one of the bills passed by Governor George W. Bush Jr. as "Prohibiting the state of Texas or any of its agencies in investing in any private concern that owns at least ten percent of any corporation that produces music which describes, glamorizes or advocates violence, drug abuse or sexual activity" (111).
Marilyn Manson. Eminem. Limp Bizkit. Rammstein. All of these musical artists have been under fire in the past few years by government officials, the media, and activist groups. Supposedly, their music conveys too violent of a message. The sounds and words these artists have so carefully crafted have been targeted as the cause for violent acts, especially by young people. For example, Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold idolized German industrial bands such as Rammstein and KMFDM, as well as American shock rocker, Marilyn Manson. The public has been quick to blame these musicians for violence in the United States. People are calling for government regulations in the form of ratings, warnings, edited material, and even bans on such allegedly offensive music. But how far is too far? Should the government regulate what should rightfully be the responsibility - and the right - of parents or guardians?
Censorship in music is a very controversial subject in today’s society. What is considered a form of artistic expression to some is also considered vulgar and inappropriate to others. But who ultimately gets to decide what is considered vulgar and what is not? Who decides who hears what in the music industry? The RIAA is responsible for applying the Parental Advisory stamp on every album that is released in the United States. The FCC is responsible for making sure that no vulgarities or controversial comments are aired on radio or television. But why is some content edited and other content not? I will try and explain these questions in our article.
The First Amendment clearly states that the U.S. government cannot make a law stopping the freedom of speech. Pro-censorship supporters say music is not included under the First Amendment but it is since music is expression. The freedom of speech includes freedom of expression and the right to hold your own opinion. This country is founded on the idea that we should be able to say, read, or publish anything we want. Music is an artist?s form of expression and banning or censoring his or her music would be stopping his or her right to say whatever he/she wants. We also have and value our own opinions and ideas and in return, respect every one else?s. If someone bans or censors a certain song because of it?s ideas, then we are not respecting the artist?s right to an opinion. An audience might have a certain opinion which we can discuss among ourselves, yet if an artist wants to sing a song about it, people want...
The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights exists because the Founders of our country understood the importance of free expression. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." (Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution 17). One of the ways the American people use this freedom of speech and expression is through the creation of the art form known as music. Music's verbal expression bonds our society through our emotions and experiences. This fundamental right of freedom of expression is being threatened by public and governmental groups who believe they have authority to monitor and decide what others should experience. The censorship of music lyrics is a violation of our First Amendment right, and public groups should not be allowed to bypass this right to censor obscene lyrics produced in the music industry.
Not only do the customers suffer by having parental bans on their favorite music, but the musicians suffer as well. The musicians are betrayed by their own labels, who are there to support them, not hurt them! The world of music is basically a collage of the artist's thoughts, so banning what they write is a violation of their freedom of speech. (Crowley, 1) One of those artists is three time Grammy winner Sheryl Crow. In 1996, Crow released her self-titled album to her many awaiting fans. When most went to their local Wal*Mart to pick it up, they were turned down because of the contents in the lyrics. (Family-Friendly..., 76) Wal*Mart said the lyrics were offensive and argued that Crow, and her record label change the offensive lyrics. (Family-Friendly..., 76) When Crow and her label refused to change the lyrics, Wal*Mart and many other large-retail stores refused to sell her album. (Family-Friendly, 76)
Music censorship has been debated since the beginning of recording history. The censoring of music is the practice of restricting free access to musical works. Songs with strong language, racist views, or harmful references will have warning labels on them. There are currently no laws regarding the censorship of music. Censorship originated from a wide variety of motivations, including moral, political, military or religious reasons. The censoring of music is incorrect and should be eradicated. Music has been prominent in culture for thousands of years; it is a big contributing factor to moral compositions, for some it is a personal refuge, for others it is enjoyment, music is an important aspect and to censor music would be racially discriminative, insensitive, and detrimental towards society.
words; this leaves the heated debate as to whether music should be censored or not. Music
The battle between the parents and the music industry still continue to this day. The Parents' Music Resource Center (PMRC) still thinks that there should be more of a regulation on the music than what there is now. "The 'gangsta rap' is just to vulgar for young teens to be listening to. It brainwashes them and sometimes even persuade them to do unlawful things" (Hip-Hop Lyrics). On the other hand the music industry has the "Parental Advisory Program." Therefore if the CD's with the explicit lyrics were restricted in any way it would bring unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment right of artists to express themselves freely, and their fans' right to hear what the artists express whatever the subject might be" (Explicit Lyrics). Many say, "What about 'Cop Killer' doesn't that depict that they go out and gunning down cops as a hobby of some sort." Rapper Ice-T himself comes back with, "'Cop Killer' is a work of musical fiction used in the hip-hop world" (Hip-Hop Lyrics).
Another reason to get rid of music censorship is because it stops artists from fully expressing themselves. Some artists use music to promote positive messages. With music censorship though, it can be hard since sometimes, their message won’t reach their audiences’ ears. This happens as beeping and blanking makes the audience hear unnecessary silence or irritating beeps. Also, cutting takes out offensive words and the words
Censorship has been around since the development of music. Throughout history pro-censorship groups, retailers, schools, parents, and legislators have found ways to censor music. (History of music censorship) Many artists have been sued because parents thought the music influenced their children to form certain acts. (Censorship in Music) We know of music censorship mainly because of the development of rock and roll during the 1950's. By 1980's censorship reached new dimensions. In 1992, the Erotic Bill law passed the "adult only" label on certain recordings. While people stand for music censorship, American Civil Rights Union fight to make them understand that musicians have First Amendment rights.
Music has always been a basic form of expression. From Antonin Dvorak, to Eminem, to even ancient, tribal music, it has been a medium through which individuals convey their thoughts and expressions. Today this medium is under attack. Everywhere we turn, everything we do and say is being scrutinized. We are being told what to say. We are being spoon-fed our emotions. No longer are we allowed to think freely, openly. All the censors out there are on the prowl for another piece to rip to shreds because it doesn't fit their description of what is decent and moral. What they fail to realize is that we don't make the music for them... We do it for release.
In the present day, Americans have had to realize what the word “freedom” means. Whether it is recognizing our freedom as American citizens and defending ourselves against a growing threat of terrorism, or protesting war as we attempt to protect another country’s plea for freedom, all Americans have looked closer at the definition of freedom. In this heightened age of freedom and evaluating our constitutional rights, it is interesting that censorship is still a controversial issue. Perhaps the most significant examples of censorship take place in the arts. While the First Amendment considers censorship illegal, there are many ways that censorship still occurs in visual art, theatre, television, and film. Perhaps film has the most organized system of censorship found in the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Chris Roth writes in his article “Three Decades of Film Censorship…right before your eyes”, that censorship by ratings is a serious First Amendment issue that deserves debate and action. The article poses many questions about the MPAA and the restrictions it places on director’s creativity. However, the most important issue it addresses is our freedom as American citizens to promote, protect, and view a diverse mosaic of ideas on screen.
In order for this problem to adjust over time, much work will be necessary. I believe that our country as a whole should focus not so much on the content of the lyrics, but who the musical artists themselves are. Just because lyrics are profound doesn’t mean that the artist believes in them, they could be relating to previous acts that have occurred in their lives, or speaking freely on the problems our society is faced with. It would be beneficial for our country if a sensor council or committee was founded to screen all songs and albums before they’re released, in order to identify them with a warning label or not
Every human possesses some guaranteed basic freedoms and rights, whether it is the freedom of speech, or the freedom to express themselves. However, the government seems to be increasingly determined to limit these freedoms, using censorship to confine these rights that we usually take for granted. The most important facet of media in general is that it allows people to express themselves freely. In fact, this freedom of expression that music allows us is one of the primary reasons why it exists. Sadly, many of the current artists have forgotten that, but nonetheless, censorship seems to always be there to limit the expression of those who choose to place deeper messages in their songs.
Then, offensive music should because the companies refuse to listen to the parents complaints. The source, Social studies feature, page 97 says “ When the albums hit stores, kids brought them anyways.” This statement demonstrates the music companies lack of respect by still selling these offensive albums to minors. The opposing side thinks their freedom of speech is being taking away, but their lyrics are not protected by the The Bill of Rights.