FREE ESSAY ON CENSORSHIP OF AMERICAN MUSIC

CENSORSHIP OF AMERICAN MUSIC

Censorship of American Music
Although is clearly states in the first amendment that 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 peaceably
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, censorship in
America still exists in a big way. I think censorship can be applied to almost anything,
including music of all kinds.
Music censorship is the term used to describe the act of editing, altering, or preventing
the listener from hearing the music as the artist created it in order to either deny
certain information or to act as a moral gatekeeper of potentially harmful material
(http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~barndollar/courses/spring98/students/fabfive/index.html).
The Censorship of music in the United Stated is documented as far back as 1954, when
Michigan congresswoman Ruth Thompson introduces a bill in the House that would ban
mailing of any pornographic recording, punishable by five years imprisonment and a $
5,000 fine (http://ericnuzum.com/banned/fifties.html). Even Elvis Aaron Presley, 'The
King of rock-n-roll' was once thought of as obscene. In 1957, when he appeared on the Ed
Sullivan show for the third time, the cameramen were told to only film him from the waist
up. Elvis's dancing was considered lewd (http://ericnuzum.com/banned/fifties.html). In
1964, Indiana Governor Matthew Welsh asks the State Broadcasters Association to ban the
song 'Louie, Louie' by the Kingsmen because he considers it to be pornographic.
(http://ericnuzum.com/banned/fifties.html). This trend has continued all the way up to
the nineties, and I'm sure it won't stop any time soon. 
In the past ten years especially, music has been under attack by many law makers,
prosecutors and critics of morality and good taste. One attack on this freedom comes from
parental advisory stickers. These stickers are used as a form of censorship against an
artist and their lyrics. If a label will produce an album, I don't think there should be
any reason that the consumer can't decide for him or herself if lyrics contained in the
album are found obscene or otherwise unsuitable. In order to begin the debate on whether
or not parental advisory stickers serve as a form of censorship, one must consider what
the word censor implies. The word censor means the power to suppress publications or
excise any matter in them thought to be immoral, seditious or otherwise
undesirables(Webster Dictionary 227). The question of what constitutes proper language
and obscenity has been greatly forced upon the music industry. The government oversteps
the constitution in concluding on which lyrics are appropriate for children. Legislation
on this topic has been in effect since the mid 1950's. Further legislation was not passed
until 1985, when music labeling was voluntarily adopted by the Recording Industry of
America. Later in 1990, although each company retained discretion regarding the labeling
of specific records, the size, placement and wording of the logo were standardized. The
current labeling consists of a black and white logo, fixed to the permanent packaging on
the bottom right hand corner. 
For all the controversy these stickers stir up, do they really serve a practical use for
protecting the young people of the nation? Parental advisory stickers, voluntary or
mandatory, act as a form of censorship because the stickers effect the availability of a
sound recording. More and more music stores are restricting the accessibility of works
deemed to be offensive to one group of citizens or another. In 1992 it was announced that
Ice T's song Cop Killer would not be in future albums, and that all existing albums would
be recalled. Consequently, approximately 1,400 stores dropped the album. Many major
retailers such as Woolworth's and K-mart will not purchase, and therefore not display, an
album with any kind of parental advisory sticker on it. While it is true that legally
these labels do not prohibit sales to anyone, the labels amount to an elegant form of
censorship, elegant because it is censorship made to look like consumer information. (1)
As controversial as records like Ice T and other artists who use either swears or
sexually explicit material are, artistic pieces no matter what kink of message they send,
or however unpopular they may be, are still protected by the first amendment to the
constitution. The people who vote for and pass the laws prohibiting free speech are
taking it upon themselves what they think is moral and right for the rest of the country.
I feel I can make up my own mind about what type of music I listen to, how about you? One
organization claiming to protect the children is the Parents Music Resource Center. At
the center of the music labeling controversy, the P.M.R.C., feels that current levels of
violence, racism, brutality towards women, drug and alcohol glamorization in music,
lyrics, videos and stage shows need to be addressed through public discussion and
debate(Hull 23). The P.M.R.C. hopes to prohibit the sale of records to minors that
contain lyrics about sex, drugs and alcohol, murder or suicide(Weinfeld 46). If that were
the case, even the bible may be labeled with a parental advisory sticker, with its
descriptions about crucifications, stonings, and other primal methods of punishment. One
must also take into consideration that no direct link between exposure to sexually
explicit material and antisocial behavior or sexual violence has ever been established or
proven.
Many organizations have been founded as a counter attack to the Parent's Music Resource
Center. One group that works for freedom of expression call themselves, Parents of Rock
and Rap. Members include students of all ages, parents, grandparents, college professors
and musicians. 
No matter what side of the issue you stand for, the issues as of now have to be settled
by the consumer. Restricting the purchase of displeasing recordings is censorship(Zeinert
27). The entire system must be carefully examined, including prior court rulings and
decisions on the music industry and the way in which we protect our children from what
they see and hear. One must ask if it is constitutionally moral, and then we may begin to
change the warning system, so that our guaranteed freedoms do not die. Personally, I feel
that any type of censorship is wrong. However, it does not mean that in does not serve
its some purpose in cases. That is up to the individual in hand. 
Bibliography
Hull, Mary. Censorship in America. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 1999. 23.
Winfield, Betty Houchin. Bleep! : Censoring Rock and Rap Music. Greenwood Publishing
Group, 1999.
Zeinert, Karen. Free Speech: From Newspapers to Music Lyrics. Enslow Publishers,
Incorporation. 1995.