Censorship Is a Very Sensitive Issue - Essay Example

& No. Censorship (ENGL 1020) 16 September Introduction Censorship is a very sensitive issue and any discussion of it is bound to generate some form of controversy. This is because censorship is connected with what society values most. In this regard, the censorship debate is focused on what may be considered as immoral views, sensitive topics, harmful behaviors or inconvenient practices in which these practices are not allowed by the government, media outlet or any controlling body composed of the influential people in a community such as church leaders, advocates or non-government organizations. It immediately comes into conflict with the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. In my personal case, I would consider censorship to be the deliberate suppression of speech, communication, information, ideas and opinions in order to influence another person. Additionally, censorship can also be either good or bad or both, depending on the situation or what the author of an article entitled “The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties” had termed as the contexts in which censorship occurs (Inglis 565). This article is an examination of the general and particular contexts in which censorship was imposed on the content of written and performance songs during the 1950s and the 1960s. The music industry at that time had seen the need to exercise censorship on some forms of music which they had found to be offensive to public morals such as glorification of sex, drugs, violence or political views. In particular, music industry executives were concerned with the immense popularity of rock & roll music within the younger generations and its capacity to influence these people with regards to song content such as references to blasphemy, sexual content, violence, drugs and political extremism. The period mentioned in article was one of political conservatism. Discussion Censorship is controversial because it conflicts with rights under the First Amendment which is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, censorship can change over time because a societys mores and values also change over time. This is the same case with a persons values which can change over the course of his lifetime. In other words, a person while younger may be liberal in most matters but then gradually becomes a conservative with regards to certain issues such as sex, choice of music, clothing preferences and political views. The issue of censorship is also a matter of personal opinion and this is what makes it an extremely controversial topic to discuss. A person may have different opinions on issues like birth control or euthanasia from the other person and they certainly could not agree on what constitutes censorship or not because they cannot agree on what is considered acceptable or moral from their individual perspectives. An example of how controversial it can become is when censorship is applied to pornography. Advocates of the First Amendment freedoms of expression and free speech view curtailments on the distribution and consumption of certain pornographic materials as serious violations of artistic freedom. On the other hand, those who opposed pornography in all its forms argue that the First Amendment was originally intended to protect the right of free speech and legitimate political dissent and not encourage the evil forms of artistic freedoms such as pornographic films, books and articles. This is the same issue discussed in the article written by Ian Inglis that touched on the way how artistic freedom is expressed through music. However, it can be argued that freedom has its limits. Those who have freedoms to do what they like are limited by the corresponding responsibilities to exercise good judgment on what constitutes good or bad effects on society. Freedom of artistic expression as shown in rock and roll music, just like any other freedom, carries with it the concurrent obligation to protect and promote the welfare of society. I would say that I am in favor of censorship because I have seen the abuses committed by those who use the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to make pornographic films. People who sell pornography complain about obscenity laws as a form of prior restraint in the expression of artistic freedom in which Justice Douglas sided with them. On the other hand, the chief justice at that time, Warren Earl Burger, argued the First Amendment was not put into the Constitution to protect pornography but protect political dissent (Brownmiller 1). According to author Inglis in his article, the debate about censorship is not about to end anytime soon, with “clear continuities between the circumstances surrounding these TV case studies in the 1960s . . . . and beyond. The contested subjects are the same . . . . and the adversaries are the same” (572). I certainly agree with his observation that censorship will still be a hot topic in the music industry, between those who represent a dominant corporate order and a popular musician who fights for “substantial social and cultural liberties” (ibid.) against the “institutionalized authority of the censor.” (573). The first example I can give about censorship that is also closest to my own definition of it (influencing other people) is the radio broadcasting ban on certain songs during and after the first and second Gulf Wars as well as the criticisms and attempts to implicate musicians who were doing gangsta rap in the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings. In the instances cited, the bans were intended to influence people to avoid so much violence in their lives, which these songs had tried to portray in a glorified manner (Inglis 558). The second example of how censorship can be used to influence other people was the personal example of a domestic incident in which my father brought along the remote control with him to the bedroom, without realizing that the program on the television has started to show some highly immoral for-adults-only scenes of a naked man walking around the room. If the remote was with me, I would have turned off the program immediately to censor it. This was because my little sister in the room had also seen the immoral scenes and me cutting off the program by turning the television off is an attempt to influence my little sister not to watch those controversial scenes. By implementing my own brand of censorship, I am influencing my little sister in another way that those scenes are not good for her at her age. A third example of how censorship is used or can be abused to influence people is its utilization in corrupt, totalitarian, communist or undemocratic countries where the citizens are not even allowed access to free information and cannot criticize their governments. Political censorship involves keeping people in the dark about abuses committed by certain politicians; further they are not allowed access to news from print or radio. However, their government is free to disseminate information (whether true or not) it sees as beneficial to its hold on reins of power and can continue to subjugate and influence their own citizenry (Goldstein 52). Conclusion Censorship can take many forms, sometimes blatant and oftentimes very subtle too. In his article, Inglis mentioned how “it springs from many sources . . . . and not as a singular action or policy but as any processes whereby restrictions are imposed upon the collection, dissemination and exchange of information, opinions, and ideas” (558). In the music industry, censorship is exercised by the broadcast industry executives who have control to the access of air time in which bands can hope to have their new albums given enough air play to promote. Another way censorship is imposed on musicians is by asking them to change the lyrics of the songs they would like to sing live or pre-recorded on national television. It is not my intention to judge whether this type of censorship on music talent is good or bad; my only purpose is to show how censorship can affect artistic output such as when talented musicians and singers are forced to change their lyrics to compromise and lose creativity (Inglis 570). However, I am in favor of limited censorship in order to maintain a sense of order in our society today. Work Cited Brownmiller, Susan. “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet.” Newsday. Accessed from http://susanbrownmiller.com/susanbrownmiller/html/antiporno.html on 15 Sept. 2010 from her Web site: http://susanbrownmiller.com. Goldstein, Robert Justin. Political Censorship. London, UK: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001. Print. Inglis, Ian. “The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties.” The Journal of Popular Culture 39.4 (2006): 558-573. Print. Read More