| Censorship of music in America exists in a big way and is blatantly destroying the rights of the American people to enjoy the art that is music. Although the First Amendment clearly states that �Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,� these rights are still being trampled upon by the feet of the moral few who wish to limit or block the amount of �immoral�, �obscene�, or �indecent� music available to the American public. According to Webster�s Dictionary, to �censor� means �to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.� The question is, what is objectionable and just who is making the decision on what is or is not objectionable? This country was based on the premise of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action. The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to be individuals by choosing their own religion, political standings, artistic expression, and, yes, even what music they wish to listen to. To have one small group of people infringe on these rights is extremely unconstitutional. The First Amendment is not the only law made to protect America�s freedom of speech. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Massachusetts explains... �Artistic creations, whatever their medium or message, and even if their content is unpopular and of poor quality, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and the Fourteenth Amendment extends that prohibition to state and local governments. The government is forbidden to suppress the creation or distribution of any music, play, painting, sculpture, photograph, film, or even comic book. Some legal scholars have argued that the First Amendment is only applicable to written or spoken political expression, but the U.S. Supreme Court has long rejected that interpretation. In a 1948 decision, the Court stated "We reject the suggestion that the constitutional protection for free speech applies only to the exposition of ideas. The line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive...." (1). Many pro-censorship advocates claim that allowing music to be freely expressed without first being looked over, censored, and labeled will lead to the decay of family values and an increase in the violence of youths. Organizations like the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) feel it is their duty to clean up the dirt from modern popular music so to protect the children of today from becoming the violent and deranged of tomorrow. �Today�s calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of �scientific studies� that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence� (Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment 2). This �fact� is quite untrue and unreliable. What these studies actually show is aggressive scenes or music �temporarily induce �object aggression� in some children (such as popping of balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but no actual criminal violence against another person�(Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment 2). These findings not only defend the honor of music lyrics but also music videos, television, and movies. �How can covering children�s ears solve serious social problems like violent crime, racism, or suicide? If suppressing creative expression were the way to control anti-social behavior, where would you stop? The main source of inspiration most frequently cited by criminals has been the Bible� (Popular Music Under Siege 3). Shall that book be burned with the rest of them? Several courts have said that musical lyrics can not be held as evidence against the artist. In 1985 the parents of John McCullom sued Ozzy Osborne, claiming that his song �Suicide Solutions� caused their son to commit suicide. The judge in this case decided that overt lyrics are protected speech and that the evidence was insufficient to connect the song with the death of their child. These same results came from cases held against the group Judas Priest (Gilchrist 1). This proves again that music�s lyrical content can not be held responsible for the acts of unstable individuals. �Few seem to understand that censorship isn�t limited to governmental entities; that large corporations are deeply and continuously engaged in censorship of movies, TV programs, and magazines, as well was music�(Katz 3). Another major and highly damaging form of censorship is corporate. These stores hold a great deal of power over the recording industry and force musicians to censor their work in hopes that they will be allowed a place on the shelves of very popular chains of stores that cross this country. These companies are allowed to slip through the cracks which government can not. They have to power of economic manipulation on their side. next page |