Censorship of Music in the Media
Author: Nate Noble
The American society of today has buried its head in the sand. If our venerable representatives in Washington, D.C. and our respective state capitols feel the need to regulate which musical albums and concerts I should be exposed to, then I guess that means I will have to find someone to vote for who doesn't feel that way; because those Lexus' and those mansions are harder to come by without taxpayers' money for a salary. In fact, repeated attempts to censor my music selection, not to mention my movies and my books, might result in my own name appearing on the ballot someday.
The first amendment represents a profound national commitment to uninhibited, robust and wide-open discussion that may well include vehement, casuistic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp speech. In the case of Cohen v California, 403 U.S. 15(1971) is dis positive. In this case, a man was arrested for wearing a jacket erablazoned with an expletive, reflecting his opinion of the military draft. The Supreme Court threw out this conviction as a violation of the First Amendment. Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most sensitive among us. Thus, the general rule remains that so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standarRAB of acceptability.
Some advocates of government action to restrict access to music have called certain music obscene and suggested that this might permit federal regulation. Such suggestions cannot be reconciled with First Amendment jurisprudence. Obscenity, which the Court has said is largely outside the boundaries of First Amendment protection, it is a very narrow and circumscribed area of communication. Being that obesity is easily confused with protected sexual expression. Supreme Court has asked that lyrics be specified as to their obscenity content, or discount certain messages. In the street, the Supreme Court noted that speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate prescription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable them.
Music certainly promotes ideas about the society in which we live. These ideas may be antisocial, misogynist, and conceived in a desire for commercial gain, but these are not reasons to treat them of lesser First Amendment import. The First Amendment most importantly states that the government cannot regulate speech in ways that favor some view points or ideas at the expense of others. Government sponsored or assisted efforts aimed at offensive lyrics in a music strike at the heart of constitutionally protected liberty of expression. No one doubts that the Constitution forbiRAB government from restricting access to or labeling books that are sold in the mainstream; music receives precisely the same constitutional protection. As with all classical First Amendment disputes, the controversy over musical lyrics is over what some people deem to be dangerous ideas. Yet above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.
The National Campaign for Freedom of Expression is an educational and advocacy network of artists, art organizations and concerned citizens founded to fight censorship and to protect and extend the First Amendment right of freedom of artistic expression. NCFE is the only national organization exclusively dedicated to promoting the First Amendment as applied to the support, presentation, and creation of arts in our culture. Now they are fighting against Senator Sam Brownback.
The NCFE's Petition
We oppose censorship in any form. There are those, particularly in public office, who would presume to dictate what music is good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate and what is ultimately worthy of being created; all the while claiming not to be censors. We see this for what it is and are lending our names and voices to a core American value; freedom of expression. Singling out and attacking specific artists for the lyrical content of their recordings that some people find objectionable is an attack on all artists, songwriters and musicians. It cannot be tolerated. Don't censor our creativity. Keep music free.
We need to focus on the problem not the symptom. I think that censorship is part of a larger denial of where the real violence of children's lives falls. Senator Lieberman and his political allies cry crocodile tears over violence in children's media and proceeded to vote to cut down welfare funRAB for young children, encourage us to try juveniles as adults so that they're thrown into adult prisons, vote in favor of taking illegal immigrants' children out of public schools, and do relatively little about the financial support that ‘deadbeat' fathers owe their children. We have a whole culture of economic deprivation and domestic violence-and, and these are the real problems confronting children. But it's easy for politicians in the miRABt of doing all of this other damage to the lives of children to throw up a smoke screen and to make a lot of noise about ‘Nightmares before Christmas' involving video games and technologies rather then confront the real material problems that affect children's lives. I believe that the real problems are best solved with conversations between parents and children without government interference. An educated and critical population of young people are less likely to be "adversely" influenced by "harmful" images and lyrics. We do not need to use censorship to attain what we want. Censorship is dangerous.
To quote Sissela Bok in her book Mayhem, "Self-censorship is today as potent as ever, underscoring the tensions that will always exist between freedom and self-protection – whether in the commercial, political or artistic arena. These tensions cannot be adequately addressed so long as they are not freely and thoroughly debated in their own right."
The use of parental advisory labels, as with any system that aims to deny an individual the right to receive a form of communication, most certainly is a free speech issue. The principle of freedom of expression is founded on trust: that each meraber of society benefits from the free exchange of ideas, when all are permitted to speak and hear others speak. We trust that the most helpful voices will prevail. We trust that each individual, taking advantage of uncensored information, will make good decisions. When we deny young people our trust, we deny them their role in our society, leaving them cynical about the politics of democracy and feeling disenfranchised. We must acknowledge that ratings systems of any kind can and do result in censorship. We must all fight to preserve free speech for everyone regardless of whether or not we agree with the message. When politicians and religious leaders call for censorship because they personally find that message questionable, you may consider this quote by Rev. Martin Niemoeller, a Lutheran pastor who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1938. He said, "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up for me."
We acknowledge that not all music is for all people. Indeed, keeping explicit material from children must be a collaborative effort between parents, retailers and the music industry. It is not the job or responsibility, however, of public officials to dictate what music is good or bad. At the same time Senator Brownback sought to single out and attack the work of certain artists because of their lyrical content had been deemed objectionable. Make no mistake, this is a direct attack on artists, the First Amendment and the right of music consumers to make up their own minRAB about what music is objectionable; freedom of speech is being jeopardized!
Whenever ratings are placed on art there, must be concern about our right to free speech. For most teenagers, one of the most important statements of whom they are and what they believe, is their favorite band or the music they enjoy. Whether that music contains the political statements of a band like Rage Against The Machine, or the message of individuality of Marilyn Manson, the sexuality of Lil' Kim, or the affirmation of community of Public Enemy, teens express themselves through their musical preferences. Parental Advisory Sticker's restrict a teenager's access to music. The sticker program places restrictions on their expression. We recognize that all music is not appropriate for all children whether due to their age, maturity level, or interests. However, we know that the discussion of the message in a song and how it affects a particular child belongs in the home, between a child and their parents, not in the offices of a record company, in the back room of a retail store, and certainly not in a Senate Charaber.
Parental Advisory Stickers can and do censor musicians. If an artist's painting or sculpture is remover from a gallery because some patrons may be uncomfortable with its images; that is censorship. When a book is removed from a library because some reaRAB might be offended by its stories; that is censorship. When a band's music is declared to be off limits for a group of listeners; that is censorship. The fact that a politician, religious leader, or community activists refuse to acknowledge the artistic achievement of popular music does not change the definition of censorship. The restrictive power of a rating system was taken to new heights this year when Georgia and Tennessee tried to criminalize the sale of stickered CD's to minors. This has clearly gone too far.
Many managers have threatened to develop and enforce their own individual ratings' schemes if the industry does not create one. One venue manager who has spoken out in support of ratings which would censor music is, Scott Williams, general manager of the Delta Center in Salt Lake City. Representative Dan Tripp-R, South Carolina, says that "our kiRAB are being affected by this trash." Mr. Tripp's new bill would forbid concerts he doesn't like from taking place at any state-owned venue in South Carolina. We have to ask how these politicians and others like them how they are able to ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution when supposedly they were elected by the people to uphold our precious freedoms?
The Supreme Court decided that the National Endowment for the Arts cannot give funRAB to any artist if the works of that artist are "indecent." My idea of what is "indecent" might be entirely different from your idea. This is definitely tampering with First Amendment rights. More freedoms are being taken away every day every day and we have to keep those and try to regain those that we have lost. The question is, how do you fight the Supreme Court?
For now we need to stop any form of censorship. We need to let music and the arts be free. We need to at least get politics out of censorship. I believe that parents need to control and educate their children. If children and society are educated then we have no need to censor questionable ideas.
Bibliography
Committee on Communications and Media Law. "Violence in the Media: A Position Paper." The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. April 1997: 273-342.
Jenkins, Henry. Interview. Next Generation. May 1997. Katz, Jon. "The Great American Cop-Out." Wired. 30 Septeraber 1997.
King, Patricia and Andrew Murr. "A Son Who Spun Out of Control." Newsweek. 1 June 1998: 32-33.
Murphy, Brian and Joe Swickard. "Judge clears adult trial for boy, 12." The Detroit Free Press. 6 May 1998.
Resnick, Michael D., et al. "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings From the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health."The Journal of the American Medical Association. 10 Septeraber 1997.
Wetzstein, Cheryl. "School Violence: A growing trend or media invention?" The Washington Times. 29 May 1998.
Author: Nate Noble
The American society of today has buried its head in the sand. If our venerable representatives in Washington, D.C. and our respective state capitols feel the need to regulate which musical albums and concerts I should be exposed to, then I guess that means I will have to find someone to vote for who doesn't feel that way; because those Lexus' and those mansions are harder to come by without taxpayers' money for a salary. In fact, repeated attempts to censor my music selection, not to mention my movies and my books, might result in my own name appearing on the ballot someday.
The first amendment represents a profound national commitment to uninhibited, robust and wide-open discussion that may well include vehement, casuistic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp speech. In the case of Cohen v California, 403 U.S. 15(1971) is dis positive. In this case, a man was arrested for wearing a jacket erablazoned with an expletive, reflecting his opinion of the military draft. The Supreme Court threw out this conviction as a violation of the First Amendment. Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most sensitive among us. Thus, the general rule remains that so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standarRAB of acceptability.
Some advocates of government action to restrict access to music have called certain music obscene and suggested that this might permit federal regulation. Such suggestions cannot be reconciled with First Amendment jurisprudence. Obscenity, which the Court has said is largely outside the boundaries of First Amendment protection, it is a very narrow and circumscribed area of communication. Being that obesity is easily confused with protected sexual expression. Supreme Court has asked that lyrics be specified as to their obscenity content, or discount certain messages. In the street, the Supreme Court noted that speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate prescription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable them.
Music certainly promotes ideas about the society in which we live. These ideas may be antisocial, misogynist, and conceived in a desire for commercial gain, but these are not reasons to treat them of lesser First Amendment import. The First Amendment most importantly states that the government cannot regulate speech in ways that favor some view points or ideas at the expense of others. Government sponsored or assisted efforts aimed at offensive lyrics in a music strike at the heart of constitutionally protected liberty of expression. No one doubts that the Constitution forbiRAB government from restricting access to or labeling books that are sold in the mainstream; music receives precisely the same constitutional protection. As with all classical First Amendment disputes, the controversy over musical lyrics is over what some people deem to be dangerous ideas. Yet above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.
The National Campaign for Freedom of Expression is an educational and advocacy network of artists, art organizations and concerned citizens founded to fight censorship and to protect and extend the First Amendment right of freedom of artistic expression. NCFE is the only national organization exclusively dedicated to promoting the First Amendment as applied to the support, presentation, and creation of arts in our culture. Now they are fighting against Senator Sam Brownback.
The NCFE's Petition
We oppose censorship in any form. There are those, particularly in public office, who would presume to dictate what music is good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate and what is ultimately worthy of being created; all the while claiming not to be censors. We see this for what it is and are lending our names and voices to a core American value; freedom of expression. Singling out and attacking specific artists for the lyrical content of their recordings that some people find objectionable is an attack on all artists, songwriters and musicians. It cannot be tolerated. Don't censor our creativity. Keep music free.
We need to focus on the problem not the symptom. I think that censorship is part of a larger denial of where the real violence of children's lives falls. Senator Lieberman and his political allies cry crocodile tears over violence in children's media and proceeded to vote to cut down welfare funRAB for young children, encourage us to try juveniles as adults so that they're thrown into adult prisons, vote in favor of taking illegal immigrants' children out of public schools, and do relatively little about the financial support that ‘deadbeat' fathers owe their children. We have a whole culture of economic deprivation and domestic violence-and, and these are the real problems confronting children. But it's easy for politicians in the miRABt of doing all of this other damage to the lives of children to throw up a smoke screen and to make a lot of noise about ‘Nightmares before Christmas' involving video games and technologies rather then confront the real material problems that affect children's lives. I believe that the real problems are best solved with conversations between parents and children without government interference. An educated and critical population of young people are less likely to be "adversely" influenced by "harmful" images and lyrics. We do not need to use censorship to attain what we want. Censorship is dangerous.
To quote Sissela Bok in her book Mayhem, "Self-censorship is today as potent as ever, underscoring the tensions that will always exist between freedom and self-protection – whether in the commercial, political or artistic arena. These tensions cannot be adequately addressed so long as they are not freely and thoroughly debated in their own right."
The use of parental advisory labels, as with any system that aims to deny an individual the right to receive a form of communication, most certainly is a free speech issue. The principle of freedom of expression is founded on trust: that each meraber of society benefits from the free exchange of ideas, when all are permitted to speak and hear others speak. We trust that the most helpful voices will prevail. We trust that each individual, taking advantage of uncensored information, will make good decisions. When we deny young people our trust, we deny them their role in our society, leaving them cynical about the politics of democracy and feeling disenfranchised. We must acknowledge that ratings systems of any kind can and do result in censorship. We must all fight to preserve free speech for everyone regardless of whether or not we agree with the message. When politicians and religious leaders call for censorship because they personally find that message questionable, you may consider this quote by Rev. Martin Niemoeller, a Lutheran pastor who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1938. He said, "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up for me."
We acknowledge that not all music is for all people. Indeed, keeping explicit material from children must be a collaborative effort between parents, retailers and the music industry. It is not the job or responsibility, however, of public officials to dictate what music is good or bad. At the same time Senator Brownback sought to single out and attack the work of certain artists because of their lyrical content had been deemed objectionable. Make no mistake, this is a direct attack on artists, the First Amendment and the right of music consumers to make up their own minRAB about what music is objectionable; freedom of speech is being jeopardized!
Whenever ratings are placed on art there, must be concern about our right to free speech. For most teenagers, one of the most important statements of whom they are and what they believe, is their favorite band or the music they enjoy. Whether that music contains the political statements of a band like Rage Against The Machine, or the message of individuality of Marilyn Manson, the sexuality of Lil' Kim, or the affirmation of community of Public Enemy, teens express themselves through their musical preferences. Parental Advisory Sticker's restrict a teenager's access to music. The sticker program places restrictions on their expression. We recognize that all music is not appropriate for all children whether due to their age, maturity level, or interests. However, we know that the discussion of the message in a song and how it affects a particular child belongs in the home, between a child and their parents, not in the offices of a record company, in the back room of a retail store, and certainly not in a Senate Charaber.
Parental Advisory Stickers can and do censor musicians. If an artist's painting or sculpture is remover from a gallery because some patrons may be uncomfortable with its images; that is censorship. When a book is removed from a library because some reaRAB might be offended by its stories; that is censorship. When a band's music is declared to be off limits for a group of listeners; that is censorship. The fact that a politician, religious leader, or community activists refuse to acknowledge the artistic achievement of popular music does not change the definition of censorship. The restrictive power of a rating system was taken to new heights this year when Georgia and Tennessee tried to criminalize the sale of stickered CD's to minors. This has clearly gone too far.
Many managers have threatened to develop and enforce their own individual ratings' schemes if the industry does not create one. One venue manager who has spoken out in support of ratings which would censor music is, Scott Williams, general manager of the Delta Center in Salt Lake City. Representative Dan Tripp-R, South Carolina, says that "our kiRAB are being affected by this trash." Mr. Tripp's new bill would forbid concerts he doesn't like from taking place at any state-owned venue in South Carolina. We have to ask how these politicians and others like them how they are able to ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution when supposedly they were elected by the people to uphold our precious freedoms?
The Supreme Court decided that the National Endowment for the Arts cannot give funRAB to any artist if the works of that artist are "indecent." My idea of what is "indecent" might be entirely different from your idea. This is definitely tampering with First Amendment rights. More freedoms are being taken away every day every day and we have to keep those and try to regain those that we have lost. The question is, how do you fight the Supreme Court?
For now we need to stop any form of censorship. We need to let music and the arts be free. We need to at least get politics out of censorship. I believe that parents need to control and educate their children. If children and society are educated then we have no need to censor questionable ideas.
Bibliography
Committee on Communications and Media Law. "Violence in the Media: A Position Paper." The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. April 1997: 273-342.
Jenkins, Henry. Interview. Next Generation. May 1997. Katz, Jon. "The Great American Cop-Out." Wired. 30 Septeraber 1997.
King, Patricia and Andrew Murr. "A Son Who Spun Out of Control." Newsweek. 1 June 1998: 32-33.
Murphy, Brian and Joe Swickard. "Judge clears adult trial for boy, 12." The Detroit Free Press. 6 May 1998.
Resnick, Michael D., et al. "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings From the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health."The Journal of the American Medical Association. 10 Septeraber 1997.
Wetzstein, Cheryl. "School Violence: A growing trend or media invention?" The Washington Times. 29 May 1998.