Artistic Freedom and Censorship During War - Essay Example

Argument: Artistic Freedom and Censorship during War Introduction During the 1982 Falklands War, the British government banned the playing of some so-called war songs, such as the song ‘Imagine’, by John Lennon. These songs were construed as songs which opposed the war which was being fought at that time. In the United States, this scenario was repeated when the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the war in Iraq and consequently, political pressure resulted to the ban of their songs in some American radio stations. This situation has given rise to censorship of artistic freedom of expression during times of national crisis, such as wars. This paper shall discuss both sides of the issue; it shall identify the main arguments surrounding this issue and shall recommend the position or course of action which I believe would best resolve this controversy. Discussion The main arguments surrounding this issue, as pointed out by those who favour artistic censorship is that during wartime, there is a need to be more sensitive about the songs or images being released or being heard by the public. These advocates emphasized that the music which should be played during war times should be suitable and patriotic (Tucker & Wood, 1999). Furthermore, certain types of music should be banned because they were unpatriotic and took away support for the war efforts by the troops. Other advocates also point out that the incident surrounding the Dixie Chicks were not about being deprived of the freedom of expression, but it was mainly about capitalism. Capitalism is about considering the economic byplay of supply and demand. “If your livelihood depends on something and you take actions (whether protected or not) that alienate a portion of that collective ‘something’, you’ve got to expect a reduction in demand for your product” (Sabin, 2006). The Dixie Chicks were not stripped of their right to express themselves. They still possessed such right at the moment and even after they uttered the words they did. It was just unfortunate that many people did not agree with their words and the people responded in the only way knew how – by also speaking out against them and by not buying their records. Advocates of artistic freedom point out that when they expressed their dissent of the Dixie Chicks, they too face the same ridicule and angry labels that anti-war protesters threw at them. “It’s amazing how quickly a person who justifies his/her anti-war protest using freedom of speech can forget that Dixie Chicks protesters have that same right” (Buzzle.com, 2010). Both sides are claiming the same right over the other and some label this situation an exercise in hypocrisy. Those who oppose artistic censorship during war time point out that the freedom of speech should be respected and should be considered absolute. They point out that Americans should not pride themselves on living in the ‘land of the free’ when people can speak their minds, but be punished for expressing their dissent. This situation now puts these people who do want to express themselves in a position wherein they have to pay the price for expressing themselves. These opponents to artistic censorship point out that there is a power being imposed by the government on the corporate media. And when the corporate media is vulnerable to control and censorship by a higher power, the freedom of speech and expression is compromised (Rampell, 2007). Because of the Dixie Chicks incident, the picture portrayed about the freedom of expression is that it is not free – that those who use and embrace it have to pay the price, and that price, is often high. Sean Penn, in a boldfaced statement directed against supporters of the war said it best when he uttered: “we do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families” (Rampell, 2007). A committee for the First Amendment was convened in 2007 to seek redress for past grievances and to remind people about an era of repression in order to focus the attention on contemporary censorship against dissenting artists. Other protesters also point out that although no law was indeed broken when the Dixie Chicks were banned from radio stations, the line between boycotts and censorship was nevertheless crossed (Glass, 2006). The personal opinions of individuals remain personal opinions. If people feel the need to express their protest against the Dixie Chicks, then such was their personal right. However, banning their music from the airwaves, from TV, or from other media is still considered censorship. It implies an intolerance of other people which is reminiscent of bigger and more censorious actions. “There is a huge difference between deciding that you don’t like an artist because of her political leanings and demanding that media companies ban her work” (Glass, 2006). Based on the positions discussed above, I believe that artistic censorship should not be practiced during times of national crisis or war. More particularly, the Dixie Chicks incident and the John Lennon incident are instances which showed me that we should practice maximum tolerance. This includes respecting each other’s freedom of speech and expression. Such freedoms or rights should be absolute; there should be no special bans on it because when such limits are imposed, civil liberties may be compromised. When we allow our freedom of expression or speech to be curtailed or compromised due to a national crisis or war, then this may open small cracks where they may be violations of our rights. There is often chaos and lawlessness during wars and national crisis, and during these instances, there may be legal violations by the government and even private institutions. In these instances, the right to speak out against the government and against other institutions should be absolute. I oppose artistic censorship during wars or national crisis because they are extreme reactions to simple incidents which can be resolved through more peaceful means. Art or music is a form of expression and, admittedly, reactions to its message may be negative or positive. Nevertheless, the right to express one’s reaction to the music is inherent, and there are no negative or positive expressions to art or music. It is a subjective process after all. When the reactions to art or music can sometimes disturb the peace, then it may be a deplorable reaction. However, the right to express is still there. Such is its nature. Angry protests against the Dixie Chicks should have been tolerated by the people – by those who opposed and by those who favoured it. A worthy point set forth above contains an uncomfortable truth – that the music industry is ruled by capitalism. And when one risks the public image and public approval, one also risks losing his marketability and favourability. In these instances, one should not be surprised if the reaction of the people would translate to lower economic patronage. Indeed, it is important to note that, the low album sales of the Dixie Chicks may be a loss of favour from the people. The Dixie Chicks still had the right to express themselves, but it is deplorable to note that they had to pay the price for taking on that right. The blame however is also suffered by those who oppose the war and who advocate artistic freedom of expression. Just as they possess the right to express, the other side also possesses that right. And once again, the importance of tolerance is manifest. Conclusion The issue above portrays the need to achieve the delicate handling of a person’s right to expression and to speech. I believe that during wars and national crisis, this right should not be curtailed because curtailing it would bring about so many untold dangers on our freedoms and liberties as a people. Instead, those who oppose and those who support artistic freedom should both be tolerant of each other and help protect, if not the content of the issue, but the very essence of the freedom of expression. In conclusion, I quote Voltaire when he says, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Works Cited Dixie Chicks Pay a Price for Free Speech (2009). Buzzle.com. Retrieved 22 March 2010 from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-19-2003-37574.asp Glass, D. (2006) Dixie Chicks: censorship or the cost of free speech? The Seattle Times. Retrieved 22 March 2010 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003450521_woman28.html Rampell, E. (25 October 2007) Dixie Chicking: Post-9/11 Blacklisting in the Entertainment Industry. Third World Traveler. Retrieved 22 March 2010 from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McCarthyism/Dixie_Chicking.html Sabin, L (23 May 2006) Dixie Chicks Learn the Difference Between Censorship and Capitalism. Texas Rainmaker. Retrieved 22 March 2010 from http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/05/23/dixie-chicks-learn-the-difference-between-censorship-and-capitalism/ Tucker, S. & Wood, L. (1999) The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia. New York: Taylor & Francis Read More