Tippers Crusade

Navigation: Main page

Google Cash.
Official Google Cash How to Earn Thousands Writing Google AdWords Part-Time updated w/ 24 videos. $44.36/sale.

Author: Sunny Sambhara

Article source: http://www.lonelycanuck.com/. Used with author's permission.

The union was formed two hundred and twenty six years ago by the forefathers of this nation out of spite for a foreign oppressive government that not only dictated the structure and function of our domestic society but also its morality. The constitution became the hallmark of the American struggle for independence the basis of a new government and a new set of values filled with a series of statements forever protecting the rights of the people from governments "foreign and domestic".

One such amendment held dearly by the American people is the first, commonly known as freedom of speech. It has been a freedom both consistently enjoyed and challenged during the course of American history; challenged on grounds that were one of the original reasons that the rebellion originally took place. That reason is the dictation of what social morality should be to the general public by a third party.

One of the greatest musicians and philosophers of the last century was quoted saying "There is no freedom. Even the birds are chained to the sky" (Johnson 422). Bob Dylan made this statement when CBS refused to play his song the Ballad of Emmit Till. What Mr. Dylan insinuated when making this statement was that:

"regardless of what our conceptions of freedom are, we are all slaves to other peoples beliefs. What one person sees as artistic expression is censored by another. True freedom does not exist. True freedom was lost so many years ago" (423).

The first amendment, the one that directly addresses the concept of freedom of speech, states that:

"Congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

A quick analysis of the first amendment and we easily discover that, even though this freedom is guaranteed to us by the constitution, it is only directed to avoid oppression by the government. The first amendment establishes what we will refer to as legal censorship. Legal censorship for the remainder of this essay can be defined as "the prevention of disturbing or painful information from reaching the consciousness except in disguised form".

By carefully observing this definition two questions are clearly raised. What should be considered disturbing or painful, and who should make such a decision? By analyzing the evolution of censorship primarily in music in the last 40 years via observing 3 very important situations one can see how society has chosen to answer these questions. The censoring of Elvis Presley on the Ed Sullivan Show, the fight against Rock and Roll made by the Parent Music Resource Center and the black listing of Eminem are three of the most influential battles censors and their counterparts have fought. The result of these three battles illustrates America's consistently changing attitudes toward the first amendment and the censorship of music.

There have been many influential decisions made when dealing with censorship in music, but none as important as the first true act on January 7, 1956. On that cold winter night, millions of frenzied teenage girls tuned in to the Ed Sullivan Show to watch their idol, the first King of Rock and Roll, Elvis Presley, shake rattle and roll his way into their hearts. What they got was 4 minutes of Elvis shot from the waist up. The decision made by CBS to broadcast Elvis, an artist known for his hip shaking gyrations, from the waist up because they felt his dancing was overtly sexual and inadvertently hedonistic was the first act of censorship in the world of Rock and Roll. The act may have been seen as insignificant at the time, but what CBS did was create a new chapter in the analysis of the first amendment. Because the censorship of Elvis Presley was not an action made on part by the government, but one made by a private third party, it was deemed as acceptable. Though Elvis didn't understand at the time, it was the beginning of the war between artists and third party censors.

With the CBS's decision, artists quickly discovered that musicians have no legal right to play music, make album covers or perform live. Music censorship is only considered a violation of our constitutional rights guaranteed to us by the first amendment when government, its laws, or its agencies conduct the suppression. Although it may be hard to believe, only in rare instances is what we call "music censorship" actually a civil rights violation and therefore legal censorship. Any other attempt to suppress music, its artwork, and live performances is entirely legal.

Though the judicial branch has chosen to interpret censorship suits on a case-by- case basis, the general consensus has been, "even though the artist has a right to create art as they see fit, they do not have the right to force any organization to distribute it in any form" (Young 218). So the form of music censorship that artists have fought against in most incidences is not legal censorship, but rather implicit censorship. It is the censoring of their art by refusing distribution through popular mediums. Distribution can either be in the form of refusing to broadcast on radio or television or the outright refusal of a store to carry an album they feel is immoral.

It is becoming very evident that even though art is considered constitutionally protected speech, Rock and Roll as a form of music has never been censored on the basis of art, but rather the basis of obscenity. If it is deemed obscene, it is subject to legal censorship, only by the government. Legal censorship itself is an evolving definition. At present it is defined as "information deemed to be extremely offensive and hold no artistic or informative value" (Parent Music Resource Center Online). In most cases regarding the censoring of music it is implicit censorship rather then legal censorship that is at play.

Nearly 30 years after CBS chose to censor Elvis's pelvis, the Parents Music Resource Center (Parents Music Resource Center) made another moral cry citing the dangers of Rock and Roll's lyrics and its influences too the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Led by a group founded by Tipper Gore and acquaintances, the Parents Music Resource Center made the first highly publicized attempt to introduce legislature forcing the record industry to include warning labels on records deemed explicit. The definition given by the Parents Music Resource Center for the term "explicit lyrics" include lyrics that "promote sexuality, contain profanity and deal with violence". (Parents Music Resource Center Online) Though the Parents Music Resource Center agreed to the labeling system volunteered by the record industry, their original requests included:

"...printing song lyrics on album covers, keeping records with sexually explicit covers under the counter, reassessing the contracts of performers who engage in violent or explicit sexual behavior in concerns and pressuring broadcasters not to air controversial songs and music videos" (Congress To Debate Rock Music; Record Industry to Label Albums 76).

The debate caused a government body to reassess the meaning of the first amendment when it contradicts the right of parents to protect their children from what they consider harmful materials. Though a compromise was reached between both parties, many artists voiced their opinion, feeling they were the real losers in the deal. Proponents for free speech on the artist's side included vocal members such as Frank Zappa,

"The problem with Judge Gonzalez's decision is that it included language that the album is obscene because it induces people to have filthy thoughts. If you write a decision like that, you've laid the paperwork foundation for a series of laws that will lead to thought control. Because if an album can induce you to a dirty thought, what about a greeting card? If you allow them to set up any kind of machinery to oversee the thoughts, the hearts and the minds of the, people in the United States, they will never, never leave you alone" (76).

His intelligent and articulate insights when appearing before the senate committee made Mr. Zappa the spokesperson for the artists who advocated free speech and expression. Though Mr. Zappa shifted the spotlight away from the record companies and Parents Music Resource Center to the artists and their feelings, he was not able to put an end to the debate.

Less then a decade after the death of Frank Zappa, the censorship debate was re- ignited when Marshal Mathers, popularly referred to as Eminem released his first album. Filled with violent imagery and explicit sexual and racial references, the Marshal Mathers LP was bound to be a target for many pro-censorship groups. Though Eminem has not faced any legal censorship, private well-organized organizations including NOW (National Organization for Women) the Parents Music Resource Center and Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Group have rallied for stores to ban his music.

The argument made by these lobby groups is not one of censorship, but rather one of education. Jennifer Pizer of the Western Regional Office of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund states that these interest groups are:

"... trying to teach that despite his catchy rhythms, the bad-boy shock value of his lyrics has real societal costs that more responsible folks should care about. There is no issue of Eminem's critics forcibly silencing him. They are simply calling on him voluntarily to stop, think and get it that he is hurting people. And they are calling even more passionately on everyone else to stop applauding him-- and stop rewarding him--for nasty, puerile scapegoating, even if it's got a beat" (Duralde 58).

Groups like the Parents Music Resource Center and Gay Lesbian Bisexual Tran gendered Group state they are willing to compromise as long as artists such as Eminem are as well. The lobby groups claim that as long as lyrics that they feel are obscene are edited, they will not rally for an outright ban against the artist. One example of lyrics that are consistently quoted by interest groups from the Marshall Mathers LP:

My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge That'll stab you in the head Whether you're a nigger or a kike Or the chink, wop or wetback Pants or dress--hate niggers, the answer is yes. You niggers keep egging me on till I have you at knifepoint, then you beg me to stop (Tyler 14).

There is no doubt that many would find such lyrics but that is not the burning issue. The question now becomes whether or not an artist is obligated to edit their art on the account it offends a sector of society. Though this is a very difficult question to answer as it deals with an artist's responsibility to society, the judicial system through precedents set has clearly made up its mind on the issue. With the conclusion of cases such as Ozzy Osbourne vs. State of California and Marilyn Manson vs. State of Colorado we can observe even within the past 10 years that though challenged on the grounds of hate speech and obscenity artists have no legal obligation to edit their product on accounts that other groups are offended by it. The American people have clearly taken a "if your offended by it, don't look at it" approach to the issue.

With boycotts running against Eminem and his music, most Top 40 radio stations take a similar approach when regarding his music. Even though the DJ's may have a personal bias against the artist, they claim the "radio station is not their personal juke box" and it is in the station's best interest to play a hit, rather then censor it.

The argument made by Eminem and similar artists is that music mimics society. It is a reflection on both the social and cultural mind set of America today, and censoring lyrics wont hide what youth encounter everyday. Supporters of Eminem and his music have stated that:

"...simplifying his music into sex, drugs and violence is a mistake and so is hanging him out to dry as solely responsible for the downfall of moral values. Calling on Eminem to tone down his lyrics and thus fix what ills this country is like cleaning up the blood spurting from an arterial bleed. It is fixing the outward result, but ignoring the cause of the mess. To permanently stop the bleeding pressure must be applied at the source of the flow. There are broader, more complex, and interesting questions to be answered about Eminem's songs: What is it about them that made seven million people go buy a copy of his latest album?" (Shoben 3).

Even with all the controversy surrounding this young artist Eminem's unedited Marshal Mathers LP not only won four Grammy awards, it is still the foundation for modern debate of the first amendment regarding music. Music censorship follows the same ideology that art does it mimics society. By examining censors we are in fact examining ourselves, whether it is our friends or family, neighbors or strangers, censorship is a reflection of our fight for an ideal or utopian state. In essence, censorship is truly a gift because it helps us figure out what it means to be American and what those ideals mean when they clash with the beliefs of fellow Americans.