Censorship eliminates everything that defines art and what artists do to be artists

Today’s music is an important part of our lives. It is a way of expressing ourselves as individuals and is an art form that helps us define who we are. We use it to express our feelings, our points of view and our ideas. Today, many artists face the threat of censorship. As if there aren’t enough threats in this world, unfortunately censorship is one of the controversial issues they continue to face. The purpose of censorship is to limit or restrict certain parts of a particular topic. In music, words are changed or deleted to be considered appropriate. But if music is considered an art form, why censor it? Musicians are artists and music is their way of expressing themselves. Censorship eliminates everything that defines art and what artists do to be artists.

Supreme Court decisions over the years have stated that the First Amendment covered artistic expression, as shown by films, plays, and films. Most of the problems with music and lyrics that accompany them are to focus on claims that words are obscene, encourage violence, or harm minors.

Courts protect music against censorship and prosecution

In one of the earliest famous cases, a New York court acquitted publisher John Peter Zenger in 1735 for printing the words of critic ballads from the British colonial governor. Centuries after Zenger, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was declared at Cinevision Corporation c. City of Burbank (1984), nullifying the refusal of a city council to access an amphitheater: “music is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.”

Brief timeline on music censorship

The ACLU strives to preserve the rights of musicians and their fans to create and enjoy music. Below is an example of music censorship in the United States.

1.) 2003

The administration of the Six Flags amusement park in Darien Lakes, New York, forbids Marilyn Manson from performing in the park as part of the Ozzfest tour. No further action is taken from the invoice. Radio stations across the country removed songs from The Dixie Chicks from the broadcast after a comment from the band’s singer who said she was ashamed that U.S. President George W. Bush came from her home state of Texas. Although she later apologized for the comment, the ban was still aggressively enforced.

2.) 2002

A federal judge in Louisiana has permanently banned federal authorities from banishing masks, oars, and sticks in local dance scenes as part of their national war against ravings. “When the government violated the right to freedom of expression of the First Amendment in the name of the Drug War, and when it can be argued that violation of the First Amendment does not even contribute to the Drug War, it is the courts’ duty to prevent the government from violating the rights of the innocent.”

3.) 2000

In Louisiana, a federal judge ordered the authorities to return all captured songs, including the Disney Tarzan soundtrack and songs by Britney Spears and Snoop Dogg, to an owner of a skating rink, stating that a local sheriff could not censor the music. The sheriff had taken over the music, saying that the recordings played on the track had caused a fight in the parking lot. A private school in Texas suspended four students who attended a Backstreet Boys concert, in violation of the school’s policy prohibiting “participation in improper music [or] dance.”

4.) 1998

An 18-year-old man was suspended from a high school in Michigan for wearing a T-shirt that promoted the rock band, Korn. The shirt contained no image or word except the name of the group.

5.) 1997

Three owners of a Mississippi concert hall were arrested and sentenced to six months in jail for booking a 2 Live Crew performance.

6.) 1990

Lawmakers in Missouri have introduced a bill that prohibits the sale of records containing violent, sexually explicit or “perverse” letters. Similar measures were introduced in 20 other states.

7.) 1987

A clerk was arrested in Florida for selling a copy of Live Crew 2’s live album to a 14-year-old boy.

8.) 1975

Radio stations across the country refused to play “The Pill” by Loretta Lynn because of their references to birth control.

9.) 1965

Radio stations across the country banned the song “I can not satisfy myself” because of sexually suggestive lyrics.

10.) 1955

The Juvenile Crime and Crime Commission in Houston, Texas, has banned more than 30 songs it considered obscene. Almost all the artists on the Commission’s list were black.

Censored but not deaf: musicians boycotted and banned

Musicians, like many other artists, have been censored by radio stations, universities, libraries, and virtually every other space imaginable for decades. Before them, writers who criticized the atrocities committed by governments around the world saw their books burned and banned. As a general rule, musicians are censored because their lyrics are considered too risky or inappropriate. Or, their video clips are considered sexually suggestive or purely explicit and therefore inappropriate for public consumption. Ironically, censorship and a total ban on music and videos always seem to favor artists because they attract more public attention and drive up album sales, which reinforces the belief that there is no bad publicity. The short list of artists whose music has been censored, boycotted or banished at one time or another shows that all publicity is in fact, good publicity. The controversy, whether intentional or not, is being sold, and obviously, these artists are not afraid to push the limits or make their voices heard.

1.) Censoring music violates the First Amendment

With regard to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, there is often controversy over what it protects. That is why people wonder if things like music are protected or not by the freedom of speech. Artists tend to say that their art should not be censored because it is the outlet for self-expression. However, some question this idea, since some words may offend or even harm certain groups of people. This makes the concept of freedom of speech through music a mess.

The main thing to consider here is the idea of freedom of expression. It is difficult to censor the music because, as expressed by Ken Paulsen, executive director of First Amendment Center, art forms such as dance, poetry, film, etc. They are all protected under the regime of freedom of expression. In a survey conducted in 2001, approximately 60% of respondents stated that it was a freedom of expression and felt that it should be treated as such (Paulsen). The remaining 40% did not believe it, so it’s a question. All advocates of censorship have several reasons to support it, but we must think about all of this.

People justify censorship on the grounds that it can inspire acts of violence. Benjamin Frymer of Sonoma State University talked about this idea in terms of filming at Columbine. The aggressors, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold were part of a group called Trench Mafia, a Gothic cult whose members were fans of musicians like Marilyn Manson (Frymer). This has led the media to use Manson as a scapegoat and accuse music of horrible acts of violence. Phil Chalmers, founder, and president of True Lies Youth Talks, also spoke of a similar situation in his book, “Inside the Mind of Teen Killer.” Sarah Kolb and Corey Gregory, two teenage fans of the Insane Clown Posse rap group, murdered and burned the body of their classmate, Adrianne Reynolds (Chalmers). Like the situation mentioned above, music was to blame, simply because these children listened to songs full of deadly themes.

However, music is not necessarily a problem. In fact, according to a 2001 report from the U.S. Surgeon General, mental stability and home life are the main factors that influence violence. The media, including music, do not have as much influence because the perpetrators are not necessarily mentally stable. In addition, violence in art can yield some positive effect on people. A study conducted by the University of Queensland in Australia has found that forms of aggressive/violent music, such as heavy metal, make people calmer than violent. Leah Sharman, a lead author of the study, said such music could “equalize people’s anger” and allow it to “self-regulate.” It’s easy to use music as a scapegoat and ask for censure when you see what criminals hear, but results that challenge the correlation between violent music and violent crime must be taken into account.

2.) Social Media censorship punishes free-thinking

We must be free to decide for ourselves what to read and if we can trust what we read. Facebook is currently seeking a $500,000 fine in the U.K. for its role in the Cambridge Analytica saga. Facebook is accused of allowing companies to exploit users’ personal data and thus help them “topple” the 2016 US presidential election. And the Brexit referendum through the bombing of voters with specific political announcements.

These scandals fueled the illusion that social networks have a strong influence on politics and have led to growing demands for censorship by social networking companies. The latest New York Times revelations that Facebook would have given companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Spotify far greater access to user data than previously thought would increase the pressure to make it work. Respond to the concerns of many politicians and commentators.

After a persistent political panic in the Western world over the damaging influence of false information, social media companies have already been starting to act on that front. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg plans to target new fake policies using “independent” third-party agencies.

Speaking of Facebook, we all know that Facebook has banned several “dangerous” individuals from their platform. The term “hate speech” has been floating around and now anyone can label ideas and/or rhetoric that hurts their feelings as “hate speech” and get the perpetrator banned. Social media platforms are starting to take a dictatorial approach and banning anyone who they don’t see as politically correct. Any musician, really, any person who values freedom of speech should take this type of nonsense seriously.

3.) Watered down content doesn’t mean “better” content

Every human being has God-given human rights and freedoms, whether we call it freedom of speech or freedom of expression. However, the powers that be seem to be increasingly determined to limit these freedoms by using censorship to limit the rights we generally hold as guaranteed. The most important aspect of the media, in general, is that they allow people to express themselves freely. In fact, this freedom of expression that music allows us is one of the main reasons for its existence. Unfortunately, many current artists have forgotten that, but nevertheless, censorship still seems to be there to limit the expression of those who choose to put deeper messages into their music.

Sometimes the truth might be ugly. Sometimes the truth might be harsh. Watered down content ultimately doesn’t safeguard anyone. If censorship is to so-called “protect our children,” then we need to have a greater discussion on teaching children HOW to think and not WHAT to think. Society needs to be better at raising children to be critical thinkers. Music can be used as a form of protest, education, self-expression, emotional outlet, therapy, etc. All of the above should be raw and unfiltered, especially if the people listening wants to receive 100% unabashed truth. Censorship edits or hides content. That’s not doing anyone any favors especially when information is free and can be easily accessed. Music needs to be unfiltered at all costs.