Music Should Not Be Censored in The USA

Being open minded is one of the most important attributes for a person to have in order to be successful in life. It promotes tolerance and acceptance, and rids society of hatred and biased. Sometimes we do not like what we hear, but we should listen anyway, because as we have the right to say something, so do others. If you are that close minded that you can not tolerate what you are listening to, you shouldn’t listen to it, but to force others not to listen to it as well is just absurd. Artists have the right to say whatever they want, and people should have the right to listen or not listen to it. During the course of history, people have progressed and advanced through art and music, and to censor the arts is retrogression. Music censorship goes against the First Amendment, it affects society especially the children, and has various bad economic effects as well. Music should not be censored in the USA, because everyone has the freedom to express and control themselves.
“Oh America, land of the free.” The USA is founded on freedom, all types of freedom, as established in the First Amendment “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 to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom of speech, and no one should have their right taken away from them for any reason. Music is considered a form of speech, and to have speech censored is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Music is also a form of media, and to censor media goes completely against the First Amendment. Americans have freedom of religion, so if an artist sings about aethism, his music shouldn’t be censored, because of its effects on the Christian community. It is the artist’s right, and if people do not like what they hear, then they should not listen. Voltaire said it best when he remarked, “I disapprove of what you’re saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” We might not like what the artists in the industry today are saying, but as long as they are on US soil, it is their right to say whatever they want. The founding fathers of the US assembled the constitution around the ideal of freedom, and by promoting music censorship we are retrogressing. Music censorship goes against the laws of the USA, for music is considered an art, and there are certain laws set up to protect art from censorship. “Censoring the music in this country would go against everything America is all about. People should be able to choose what they want or don’t want” ( www.joesessays.com ). If music censorship is permitted, what will stop the government from censoring art, television, or even books? In this day and age, people should have the right to say what they want.
Those who support music censorship argue that children are easily affected by music containing obscene lyrics, but is music censorship really a form of protection? ‘Our children should live in a world where they can have clear views of both sides of life’ ( www.msu.edu/~kimheej3/musiclyrics.htm ). They shouldn’t live in a world where they only see the positive side of life; if they do, they will experience an extreme shock when they enter the real world. Life has its ups and downs, artists sing about its ups, and they should be able to sing about its downs as well. Life includes sexual misconduct, murder, abuse, and rape. Those who promote music censorship think that by censoring the lyrics talking about these problems they are getting rid of them. The best way to protect our children is to educate them. Through schools, fliers, and even organizations, we can help the youth understand the problems faced in society and come up with helpful solutions. But to censor out the problems as if they do not exist is not a solution; it merely is denying the presence of problems. Our children should know that society has its faults, and we should teach them ways in which to deal with them. The answer is not to cut off the things we don’t like in life. That is not a good example for children to follow, because they will think that they can cut out the unpleasant things in life. Music censorship is unnecessary, for the RIIAA has put out voluntary, uniform labels (Explicit Content) on albums with blunt lyrics. By legalizing music censorship, the government is taking away the responsibility of parents. Parents should be more involved in their children’s’ lives. Parents should censor the music their children listen to if they don’t like it, but the government shouldn’t prevent others from listening to it and artists from expressing themselves. They should be making the decisions for their children, not the government.
“A lake which isn’t flowing and is limited is polluted easily unlike a flowing river. Although a flowing river has to suffer from wild waves, to undergo the suffering is better than to be contaminated and die” (www.msu.edu/~kimheej3/musiclyrics.htm). Music is like a flowing river, it sometimes consists of obscene lyrics which are like wild waves. To experience these waves is better than to not experience them, for you will be contaminated with the poison of denial and die. To experience all the aspects of life is better than to live an artificial life. Life resembles a flowing river, for it contains waves. A river that does not flow does not resemble life at all. Music censorship promotes authority over others. The important thing today is the individual judge not the authority judge. Individuals should control themselves, hence censorship authorities have no right to judge and control others. By imposing their rules on others, censorship authorities are controlling the freedom of artists. The thing people seem to forget is that music doesn’t create problems, it merely reflects them. Whether or not music is censored, problems will not disappear from society. Lyrics are often misinterpreted and people do foolish things. The artists are not responsible for the unwise things that others people do. Tupac did not tell the seventeen year olds to shoot at police officers, they did it out of their own will. These people should be put in medical establishments, and not be out in public, for they are the real threat to society, not the music. “The press make easy prey out of musicians. Not caring if they ruin the artist’s reputation at all” ( www.angelfire.com/co/Tinsil86/musiccensor.html ). People do foolish things out of their own will, not because of music. The Columbine Shootings were said to be influenced by Marilyn Manson’s lyrics, but people seem to ignore the fact that the murderers had psychological problems. They were not regarded as ‘popular’ in their high school, and they committed their horrendous felonies out of their own free will, not because they were told or forced to do so by music. Those arguing for music censorship say that statistics prove that crime has been on the rise after the formation of gangsta rap. ‘In truth, rise in such reports are more likely to be caused by the growing awareness and new willingness for victims to come forward’ (Page, 35). Music that talks about crimes has led to the growing awareness of them, and probably as a result of this growing awareness, more people report the crimes committed. If indeed crime is on the rise, public policy should not be made in times of chaos. Rappers are not to blame for this rise in crime; parents should have control over their children. By blaming the artists, society is just pointing fingers. They are just looking for easy answers, because they can’t deal with the horrid truth. Those who argue for censorship say that music with obscene lyrics leads to moral collapse, but in reality, when art is being limited to someone’s will is more dangerous than moral collapse in society.
Music censorship has bad economic effects. The PRMC (Parents Music Resource Center) hit rappers/rock stars so hard, that some artists had to make two albums. They had to make the original version, and an edited version. The recording of one album is very costly, let alone two albums. “Wal-Mart, as well as Camelot Music Chains, sell only the edited versions of albums” (www.angelfire.com/co/Tinsil86/musiccensor.html). Wal-Mart has become the largest distributor of music in the USA. Wal-Mart has banned many albums it found inappropriate, by censoring in this way, it wields great power in determining an album’s success. For example in 1997, Wall-Mart as well as K-Mart banned Prodigy’s new single, “Smack My Bitch Up”. By doing this they really disrupted the success of the single. Artists are just trying to make a living, by censoring their work, you are robbing them of their deserved income. People should have the right to spend their money freely. They should purchase what they like, the government should not tell people what to like.
Music should not be censored in the USA because everyone should be their own judge. It directly opposes the First Amendment, it affects children by permitting them to pursue an unrealistic life, and it has various bad economic effects. Music with explicit lyrics do not lead to the deterioration of morals in society; music merely reflects the problems evident in society today. Everyone is in charge of their own actions and they should be able to have complete control over their lives. The fight against music censorship does not promote the usage of obscene lyrics, but it is merely a fight for freedom. Free yourself from the oppressive nature of music censorship and fight for freedom.

Samar Al Ansari
Grade 10.3