|
Colden King
Audience: My audience is anyone that has ever had a parent take away a CD they were listening to, anyone that has ever had
difficulty buying a CD with a parental advisory sticker, or a plain and simple fan of music.
Music Censorship
In 1985, the Parents Music Resource Center added its name to the long list of would-be and successful censors of music. After
many senatorial hearings and lengthy trials, the face of music had been changed as we know it; albums across the country deemed
as "rock pornography," or "obscene" had been slapped with the parental advisory sticker that many are familiar with today,
or outlawed from sales or production altogether. Generations born after this momentous event were left to wonder: how did
this happen?
Music censorship is defined as "...any discriminatory act that advocates or allows the suppression, control, or banning of
music or music-related works against the wishes of its creator or intended audience." (7 Nuzum.) In addition to the parental
advisory sticker, there have been many attempts to control music and the content contained within-boycotts, protests, suppression,
and even armed force. While these measures are effective to control the content of music, they are hardly fair and are not
constitutional: The First Amendment promises to all free speech and the freedom of expression. Oftentimes, though guaranteed
protection from the United States Constitution, artists and music groups are fined, censored, banned, or even jailed because
of obscenity charges. Music cannot be censored purely on the basis of obscenity because what some may consider filthy, others
consider works of art.
When considering the topic of censorship, it is vital to bring to attention the largest fault in censorship, perspective.
Perspective and interpretation skews any view of a particular subject, depending purely upon the person. As mentioned prior,
shocking, mild, and tasteful are all words that can be used to describe the same thing or object.
How obscene and offensive are defined makes the topic of censorship a highly debatable one. What is and what is not offensive
or obscene? When it comes to classifying obscenity, the Supreme Court has the Miller Test to offer:
o(1)Whether the average person, applying contemporary standards of the states or local community, would find that the work,
taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (
o 2) whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable
state law; and (
o 3) whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
While the Miller Test did help to make the edge of the issue a little more defined, determining the nature of anything is
quite subjective; who is to say what is of "literary, artistic, political or scientific value?" In such a large world, a group
of people able to agree on one subject is a rarity. Not only does perspective affect determining obscenity, interpretation
is another huge aspect that quite often is overlooked. Not only do people have different ideas about what is offensive, but
they have different ideas pertaining to a song's content as well.
Although censorship is effective at controlling the content in music, it is hardly just and can be domineering to the point
where artists are forced to comply with standards set before them, simply because they are scared of the repercussions. Music
should not be censored because of these reasons: it violates individual rights of the artist, songs are being censored for
the wrong reasons, and standards for censorship and limits are too inconsistent and vary in degrees of severity.
Music censorship violates the rights of the artist being censored; the First Amendment states: "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 ..."(United States Constitution). This Amendment gives citizens of the United States the right to speak their
minds, say their opinion, and exchange ideas and information freely without fear of being jailed by the government. However,
in the case of censorship, musicians often times face jail time because of their ideas and opinions. Jello Biafra, lead singer
of the band the Dead Kennedys, was thrown in jail, had his house searched and raided, was forced into bankruptcy, and eventually
was forced to break up his band because he fought against the law and the censorship coalition attacking him. Not only is
the First Amendment intended to give the right of free speech, it is also intended to prevent the government from becoming
unjust by giving the right to petition the government and have your say in politics. Censoring music is denying artists and
bands of their First Amendment rights by failing to realize their right to an opinion and the freedom of expression in their
work. While the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of free speech, Miller v. California ruled "that unsolicited
mass mailings to advertise books containing explicit pictures of sexual activities can be criminally prosecuted" (First Amendment
Library.), and created new standards for what is obscene. This ruling led to the exploitation of artists and musicians everywhere,
taken out of context, citing obscenity as their crime.
Quite often, music is censored because the content is being censored for the wrong reasons. "Rock pornography" as it was commonly
called during the PMRC hearings, referred to the many social taboos that afflict our country. The PMRC stated that its mission
was "to control the artists and bands that contribute songs with inappropriate themes or elements to our society and America"
(10 Nuzum). Most often, these taboos were religion, race, sex, violence, and drug use. However, when asked to identify the
themes of a song in a 1972 survey, 430 students were polled to try and collect the correct theme of popular songs; of the
430 students only ten percent were correctly able to identify the themes of the songs.
If students, the ones "being exposed" to this kind of "rock pornography," could not correctly identify the themes of the songs
they listened to, how could adults who had never even heard them before prior to the PMRC trial? Mislabeled song content,
is simply put, the wrong reason to censor a song. Mislabeling themes and interpretation accounted for much of the censorship
during the PMRC hearings. For example, the song "Nazi Punks, Fuck Off" by the Dead Kennedys was blacklisted for "the spread
of Nazi propaganda"(Wikipedia).
The largest faults with censorship are the standards and limits that are too inconsistent and vary in degrees of severity.
Because obscenity and offensive material is purely subjective, no single person can tell a nation what is and what is not
suitable content for them to be exposed to. The only official method to determine what is and is not obscene regarding publicly
broadcasted material, is the codes mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). According to Nate King, general
manager of KMSA in Grand Junction, "The FCC enforces these restrictions by fining the crap out of people if they violate their
rules. Before the Janet Jackson accident at the Super Bowl, the fines were around $25,000, now however, they range from $250,000
up." The fines enforced by the FCC are only an example of the repercussions that could occur when obscenity laws are violated.
Given that the material an artist creates, might potentially be considered obscene by someone in power, that may misinterpret
the message or theme within a song, then blacklist, fine, exploit, blackmail, or have jailed; being an musician or recording
artist is potentially so risky that a single song could destroy a career.
What is a better way to control the content of music besides restricting the access of said material from everyone altogether?
Instead of completely removing the material from access to anyone, I propose a rating system be established, similar to that
of movies, video games, or television. I propose this system on the foundation that there is content that exists that people
do not need to hear, like materials that promote hate, or bigotry, or fascism; however restricting access, censoring, and
editing material not only violates the rights of the artist, but the rights of the consumer to choose to be exposed to different
materials that promote new ideas and opinions. Our country is founded on the principle that opinion and free speech promotes
growth and stimulates new ideas regarding government. If our government did not allow such actions to take place, then we
would live in an unjust country where the rights of all were left up to one person and were either exploited or subjugated.
Censorship will occur in our world today, regardless of the rights or choices of the people affected by it. Censorship does
not promote the exchange of new ideas, opinions, and beliefs. If the free exchange of beliefs, ideas, and opinions are not
allowed, then the only thing to look forward to is oppression.
References
Eric Nuzum. Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
"First amendment center." First amendment topics. 26th Jan. 2006. First amendment center. 6 Feb. 2006
.
King, Nathan. Telephone Interview. 25 January 2006.
"Swastika" Wikipedia. 9 February 2006. .
|
