| �Wal-Mart is the world�s largest retailer of CD�s, and that in order to get their CD�s onto its shelves, record producers were deleting songs, revamping CD covers and altering lyrics - often without the knowledge of the purchaser.� (Katz 1). If an artist refuses to change their work to please Wal-Mart the store simply refuses to stock it. �This corporation, along with other giant retailers including some theater chains and Blockbuster Video, is altering the marketplace so as to deprive us all of the right to make our own choices about what we find proper and offensive.� (Katz 1). This form of censorship could be considered the most dangerous. Wal-Mart can get away with what the government can�t. Wal-Mart can slip in the back door and start taking advantage of their unregulated form of censorship and make a large profit off the American people while doing so. Wal-Mart, and other corporations like it, is catering to the popular majority for financial gain. Meanwhile, they are robbing citizens of their freedoms of choice. �Few people know or accept that Wal-Mart�s practices --- the nation�s largest retailer of CD�s acting as a moral guard --- are profoundly altering they way music is produced.� (Katz 3). Wal-Mart is actually taking a large step in changing how music is produced and presented to public. This, in turn may cause many record industries to forgo the �Parental Advisory --- Explicit Content� labels, which the PMRC forced upon them in 1992, and simply edit the content of all music just to get room made for these albums at the local big-wig retail store. As if corporate censorship wasn�t enough, in 1992 the PMRC stuck a deal with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America, a group that's� main concern is making profits, not helping the artists. Better known as the group that sued Napster,) to start a �voluntary� uniform labeling system that many people know today as the �Parental Advisory� sticker. This sticker is to be placed on albums that contain explicit or adult content, almost like the ratings used for movies. The only problem is that legislation written concerning this program doesn�t make any specific rules regarding what the sticker should be placed on. This leaves the job up to each record label to decide its own stickering policy, and that set up allows no uniform, subjective criteria for stickering. (Nuzum 34). This new labeling system made big waves all across the country. Many local and state governments decided to expand on the PMRC�s idea and make it illegal for any person under that age of eighteen to buy the records that had been branded with the �Parental Advisory� sticker, which was merely intended to inform parents of the music�s content their child was listening to not stop them from buying it. This, a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of Americans, was later deemed unconstitutional by courts many times over. "Parental Advisory Label�s" on certain records are there so that parents or guardians can make informed choices for their children. Where is the family value that the PMRC strives for so much in that? Parents now have the opportunity to restrict music from their children on the basis of a sticker. A sticker that is not regulated fairly none the less. If an adult were to sit down and actually read the lyrics of these songs being considered explicit they would see that most albums labeled with a �Parental Advisory -- Explicit Content� sticker is either a rock or rap album. Boy bands like N�sync, Backstreet Boys and O-Town or singers such as Britney Spears and Christian Agulaira often get looked over by the hands wielding the sticker on the grounds of a �clean-living� image, are also purveyors of licentious material. Their morally dangerous lyrics all seem to revolve around sex, yet because the subject is cloaked in a metaphor and understated language their records are considered acceptable. The hypocrisy in censorship is truly brought to the forefront in the consideration of pop bands. The Prodigy�s �Smack My Bitch Up� led to copies of their �Fat of the Land� album being pulled from stores, yet Britney Spears� �Hit Me One More Time� --- a record which more than equals the Prodigys� for indistinctness in its violence encouragement ---is perfectly acceptable as a worldwide shelf filler. �The First Amendment exists to protect speech and activities that are unpopular -- if only those ideas which were popular were protected, it wouldn�t be needed. Limiting free speech in un-American -- without it, all our rights and liberties quickly disintegrate. � (Frequently Asked Questions about Censorship 1). The rights of the American public need to be kept intact as much as possible. People have the right to choose what not to listen to as well as what to listen to. Works Cited ACLU Massachusetts. Artistic Freedom. 13 August 2001. Online. Earthlink. 26 Jan. 2002. Available http://www.aclu-mass.org/issuebriefs/artfreedom.html. Freedom of Expession in the Arts and Entertainment. 1997. Online. Earthlink. 26 Jan. 2002. Available http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp14.html Gilchrist, Megan. Ohio State University. Censorship in Music. Online. Earthlink. 13 Jan. 2002. Available http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/english/People/ Hogsette.1/g1music.html Katz, Jon. Corporate Censorship, Part I: Son of Wal-Mart. 2 June 1997. Copyright 2001Lycos Inc . Online. Earthlink. 1 Jan. 2002. Available http://www.wired. com/news/topstories/ 0,1287,4181,00.html National Coalition Against Censorship. Frequently Asked Questions About Censorship. Online. Earthlink. 15 Jan. 2002. Available http://www.ncac.org/ about/faq.html Nuzum, Eric. Parental Advisory Music Censorship in America. New York. HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 2001 American Civil Liberties Union. Popular Music Under Siege. Copyright 1996 Online. Earthlink. 16 Jan. 2002. Available http://www.aclu.org/ library/pbr3.html |