FREE ESSAY ON CENSORSHIP IN MUSIC

CENSORSHIP IN MUSIC

The first amendment to the Constitution contends that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of the press. In the past ten years especially, music has been
under assault by law makers, prosecutors and critics of morality and taste. One attack on
this freedom comes from parental advisory stickers. These stickers are used as a form of
censorship against an artist and his or her lyrics. I feel that if a label will produce
an album, there is no reason the consumer cannot 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 defined by
Webster dictionary means the power to suppress publications or excise any matter in them
thought to be immoral, seditious or otherwise undesirables. 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, does it 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.
(2) 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. 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.(3) 
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. 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. 
1 - George Beahm, War of Words the Censorship Debate. 
(Kansas City: Andrews and Mcmeel, 1993) 79. 
2 - (Beahm 275) 
3 - (Beahm 79)