Anti-Music Censorship Activists - Research Paper Example

Introduction Censorship occurs when local or federal ity puts some restrictions on the form of music people buy, distribute and play in their societies. Censorship of music may take different forms like advisory labels by parents, restricted music concerts, restricted art cover, systems of rating, statutory laws and sanctioned clothing. Institutions involved in censorship of music include radio channels, television companies and organizations like PMRC. The discussion will argue against music censorship and outline various reasons why music censorship is unethical. Discussion Music censorship is an issue that has attracted a heated controversy in both the past and present world. Various people have brought about diverse arguments concerning the issue; however, the query strongly remains, is music censorship ethical or not? Those in favor for music censorship believe that it should be censored to allow listeners to listen to pure music without many controversial lyrics, (Gram 42). Anti-music, censorship activists believe that censoring music is like violating artists’ rights to freedom and expression. Artists have the right to express themselves, their thoughts, beliefs and values through speaking, singing and rapping without any restriction. Whether one find musical work indecent, extensively depends on ones values and religious morals. These opinions alter from generation to generation and increasingly complicate the dilemma of music censorship, (Espejo 85). Experts agree that religious and ethical beliefs profoundly determine how people perceive censorship, and as generations come and go the shared beliefs may change. The American first amendment regulates the government from exercising control over the media. The laws of the amendment barely apply to religious associations and societies because the federal government owns record firms and thus their music censorship is constitutional and lawful, (Nazum 45). Censoring music infringes the constitutional rights when the administration, its regulations and agencies imposes the restrictions themselves. Therefore, censoring music is like addressing society and corporate efforts to control the community based on what they hold right in accordance to their beliefs and principles. Open-mindedness as a crucial attribute of an individual is paramount to achieve a successful life. It fosters charity and approval, frees community from animosity and prejudice. At times, people dislike what they hear, but they should hear it anyway because other people have equal rights of expression as them. If somebody cannot tolerate what he is listening to, he should avoid hearing it, but pressuring others to get rid of it is unethical. Similarly, artists have equal rights to express themselves, and citizens have a right to pay attention to it or not pay attention. Historically, people have evolved and enhanced in music and artwork, and censoring music and art is regression, (Gram 49). In fact, music control violates the provisions of the first amendment; it influences community (mainly the youth) and has multiple adverse economic impacts too. Therefore, music censorship is illegal as it violates people’s freedom to regulate and express their thoughts and beliefs. The first amendment of America’s constitution guarantees all citizens liberty to speech, and government, institutions or organizations have not right to infringe on other people’s rights whatsoever, (Korpe 57). Artwork is a form of speech and censoring music is like violating one’s right to speech – and infringing the first amendment that enforces the law. The US citizens have religious liberty, therefore, if somebody produces a song about atheism his artwork should not be controlled because it affects Muslim or Christian group. It is the right of the artist to sing, and if Christians or Muslims despise the song, they should pay less attention to it. People may disapprove what artistic industry is producing and communicating today, but as long as the First amendment and law lives, the artist are free to communicate whichever message they have. Censoring music violates national human right laws because music is an artwork and countries have some set laws that safeguards art censorship. People have a freedom of choice and should choose what they desire or do not like to listen to, but have not right to infringe on other people’s right. Therefore, if the government should censor music, then what will hinder the same administration from controlling TV shows, other artwork and books? Similar to TV producers and books authors, artists or songwriters have essential rights and freedoms to speak their minds and contribute to the societal knowledge and education through singing, (Nazum 52). People in favor for music censorship argue that certain artists’ musical languages are vulgar, offensive and rude. Additionally, since music is performed in media outlets including TV and radio that people listen to, most people would not like their children to listen to such indecent languages. Some artists react to this parental idea and argue that currently, there are no regulations about music censorship. Art work with firm language, racist opinions and offensive references always have such tag on it. This implies that people can purchase the songs but should know the content of the song. Similarly, children activists and parents suggest that music containing indecent lyrics influence youth and kids, but is censoring music potentially a protection measure. Youth should experience a world where they have an extensive knowledge of the two forms of life. They should not only experience the positive part of life because they may suffer an extensive culture shock as they enter the actual world. Experts agree that life has several successes and challenges and artists sing of such positives and negative sides of life. Life entails carnal harassment, killings, rape, hostility and mistreatment, (Espejo 85). Individuals who encourage censoring of music believe that by controlling the music addressing such challenges they are eliminating them. The appropriate way to safeguard the youth is to instill morals in them. Through learning institutions, organizations and literature, people can aid teenagers comprehend the challenges faced in the community and deduce effective remedies. However, censoring out challenges as if they are imaginary is not a remedy; instead, it is like refuting the limitation. The youth should understand that the community has its challenges, and parents should teach them effective means of addressing these challenges. Music control is unethical because artists put voluntary warning labels about the music content. Therefore, legalizing censorship of music, the government is riding parents of their roles. Parent have a right to choose the music for their kids, but governments have no right to censor music and hinder other people from hearing what they want, or songwriters from communicating their message. Parents only have a right to their children’s decisions but not the country’s administration, (Korpe 63). A limited and standing lake is easily contaminated compared to a running river. Even though, a running river must experience strong waves, experiencing the challenges is better than being polluted and dying. Music resembles a running stream, as it comprises of indecent lyrics that resemble strong waves. To suffer such waves (challenges) is beneficial than not suffering them at all because one will be polluted by denial life sentence and die. Censoring music enhances power over other people. Personal decision is extremely crucial than the decision of the authorities, (Espejo 85). People should regulate their motives; thus, censorship governments have no power to impose judgment on others and manipulate them. By exercising some powers, censorship agencies are infringing artists’ liberty. Experts agree that music does not breed challenges it rather reflects problems. Therefore, whether or not artwork is controlled, challenges will always dominate in society. Artists cannot be held accountable for cruel acts people do today because people choose to misbehave entirely of their own free will. Censoring music has an adverse economic outcome. The Music Research Centre for Parents struck rock celebrities extremely hard that most of them have to produce double albums (original and edited albums). Producing two albums have enormous loss to them because they had to incur extensive production costs, (Orr 88). Similarly, censoring music ruins artists’ reputation and lowers their economic prosperity. This is because music is not only their talent but also their career, and like any other professional career music should be promoted. Artists are in income generating activity and censoring their career is like depriving them of their justified profits. Conclusion Censoring music is unethical and inappropriate because every person should be his own judge. Censoring music directly opposes the constitutional laws (for example, America’s 1st amendment), affects youth by allowing them to lead unrealistic lives and has enormous negative economic impacts. Music does not deteriorate societal morals, but it mainly reflects challenges evident in the modern world (society). Every person is accountable for her own beliefs and actions, and she should have a full control over her life. The objection of some music does not eliminate indecent lyrics, but it infringes artist rights to freedom. Therefore, music censorship is an unethical and a misplaced judgment that oppresses artists and other talents. Artists should be permitted to express themselves like authors, TV show producers, Comedians and radio presenters do. The American administration is doing an exceptional work by allowing the laws of 1st amendment accessible to all citizens. If PMRC has an issue with music, it is because parents do not properly play their parental role. Therefore, people should rid themselves from the retrogressive nature of censoring music and fight for liberty. Works cited Espejo, Roman. Should Music Lyrics Be Censored for Violence and Exploitation?Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Print. Gram, Bettina, and John Garside. Don't Stop the Music!: Music Censorship. Kbh: Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, 2004. Print. Korpe, Marie. Shoot the Singer!: Music Censorship Today. London: Zed Books, 2004. Print. Nuzum, Eric. Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America. New York: Perennial, 2001. Print. Orr, Lisa. Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1990. Print. Read More