Revision

As artists find new lyrics to shock audiences, the debate over lyrical censorship heightens.  For instance, a rapper at the head of this debate, Eminem, bashes gays, accuses his mother of using drugs, and even “murders” his wife on his latest CD.  And subsequently, a commotion in the recording industry has ignited over if children should hear such lyrics.  This marked controversy regarding lyrical censorship has surfaced in activists’ and traditionalists’ political, moral, and social agendas, thus making musical censorship the central challenge to the U.S. music industry.  Intense debate rages with concerned parents pleading for censorship, justifying this as the solution to a deluge of teen violence.  They believe that media, in particular music, has a major influence on children, causing them to be violent, abuse drugs, partake in premarital sex, ect.  Conversely, the patriots resist censorship as an infringement on their inalienable right to freedom of expression.  It is their belief that if speech is censored, other freedoms will follow.  The time has come to decide whether censorship is a viable and ethical solution to combat lyricists such as Eminem and the equally obscene.  

        What are the consequences to our youth from such musical malevolence?  Debbie Pelley, a teacher of the schoolboy responsible for the Jonesboro school shooting, testified to the consequences of hard-core rap music.  “…Mitchell himself said that the music may have influenced him and that the music sort of draws you in.” [1]  Mrs. Pelley, frequently surrounded by youths, appreciates their impressionable innocence.  She stands in opposition to their desensitization to sex, violence, and drugs by music.  Jonesboro isn’t unique.  Statistics indicate that sex, violence, and drugs are on the rise. This makes it essential to assign blame, and obscene lyrics are an easy scapegoat.  But are they to blame?  "Perhaps violence in music reflects existing violence in our society,” claimed Solange Bitol^[2] at a recent Senate hearing.  According to this view, music is simply a reflection of negativity, but does not hold the power to generate societal problems.  Furthermore, now may not be the time to institute oppressive solutions in response to tragedies.  "In the wake of Littleton, we’ve lived through a period of moral panic…. Moral panics are a bad basis for public policy," said Henry Jenkins.[3] Also, restrictions may not be needed, because a majority of adolescents are mature enough to escape the influence of explicit lyrics. 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”  The first amendment of the US Constitution disallows censorship.  Patriotic Americans who put faith in humanitarian ideology usually agree that freedom, as outlined by the Constitution, is a sacred possession.  Censorship would directly and blatantly violate the American way, because freedom of speech exists without satisfying any prerequisites such as social normalcy.  Voltaire’s famous insight stated, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”[4]  We must defend the right to free speech, for if music is censored, other art forms, such as paintings, books, newspapers, and even political debates, will come to face the same defensive position and follow the precedent of censorship.  Censoring lyrics flies in the face of democracy and is a monumental first step in the destruction of it.  However, a democracy is for, and of the people, and there are many politicians favoring censorship. They speak with one voice, claiming that artists exploit freedom of speech. Their most wrenching argument is that our children’s innocence must be preserved at any expense.  This was the sentiment of William Bennet’s anti-record label petition, which claims record companies “are profiting from the pollution of our culture and poisoning the minds of our children.”[5]  But we are born with our freedoms.  Should we preserve youthful innocence at the expense of beloved freedom? 

In earnest efforts to appease ongoing complaints, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) initiated a voluntary labeling system. The RIAA’s labeling system has led to several critical complaints; inadequacies of label size, consistency, and placement. “Not only do the standards themselves keep changing, but the music industry has never monitored its compliance with any voluntary labeling agreement it has ever made,” argues Thomas Jipping[6].   But, according to my interpretation of the Senate’s hearing over the matter, the existence of federal laws mandating the utilization of warning labels has been determined to be illegal itself.  That is, the labeling program, which is strictly voluntary, mandates the participant’s notion of “adequacy.”  “While the industry remains committed to updating our system, we oppose any effort to create a one-size-fits-all system or one that would put the industry in a policing position regarding the consumption of music,” stated Hilary Rosen[7] before the United States Senate last Wednesday.  Thus a non-compulsory system can imply shortcomings, but conversely makes their labeling system create an arbitrary sense of correctness.
 

To find out a possible solution, please visit my Theory Page.  To read about my growth as a writer, continue on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Growth as a Writer

You have just completed reading the beginning of my revised essay over censorship.  Throughout this exploration of music censorship, I feel that I have acquired many positive attributes that I employ in my writing.  Now I know what it is to define (making use of the five senses, along with metaphors and similes) and I try to express and convey my thoughts exactly.  If successful in painting a picture, the reader becomes immersed in my writing, which will heighten abilities to listen critically.  Specifically, in this web page, by conveying the notion that censorship is ever-present and looming on the horizon brings a sense of urgency, and thus generate reader enthusiasm.  That is, my knowledge of how the audience will react enhances my ability to write effectively. 
    
    Also, very important is that accompanying my research is knowledge that bestows upon me a level of expertise.  It is this knowledge that gives me relevance when making claims.  My authority over music censorship is owed to the fact that an expert level is vital to making any sound argument.  Otherwise observers won’t feel the need to listen.  Also, with one reaching an expert level, views may change throughout the course of research as new insight is learned.  Before I embarked on this project, I believed that artists posses absolute lyrical freedom.  I remain in favor of this freedom but realize that steps must be taken to inhibit impressionable kids from hearing explicit lyrics.  The research provided me with the needed facts to hypothesize a valid solution to music censorship. 

    But taking precedence in importance over my enhanced writing skills or my musical knowledge is my newly acquired ability to assess a situation and pose a deeper question.  Rather than simply accepting common occurrence, I have begun to posit why, and what is the importance or implications.  To cite a concrete example, instead of deciding if censorship is moral and right, I have overlooked that small issue, and wondered, “Why is there a need for censorship?”  I’ve concluded that the proposed need is a direct consequence of uninvolved parents’ unfamiliarity with their children and music.  Not knowing lyrical content is the direct result of a lack of bonding time spent with the children.  By looking at the bigger problem, one encounters possibilities that will surpass solving the initial, smaller dilemma.  Using the current example, figuring out how to involve parents and their children will not only destroy the need for governmental censorship, but also enhance society in various ways, including more mature, responsible citizens.  In no way am generalizing that my situation is applicable to all, but I was permitted to own rap music at a young age.  I do not swear, or emulate any of the actions that I so frequently hear being preached.  I believe this is primarily due to the morals my parents instilled in me being far more fervent than my desires to be “cool” in the eyes of the rapper.  It is for all the aforementioned reasons why this web page and all the work preceding it have developed my growth as a writer and thinker.

[Home]  [Analysis]  [Essay]  [Theory]  [Implications]  [Links]  [Censorship Watch]  [Classmate's Sites]  [Music Lyrics]  [About Me]