Johnson 1

Emily Johnson
Thomas Barron
English 101
15 December 2009
Censor This!
Its on your computer. Its in your car. Its in your head. It might even be in your
pocket as you read this essay now. What is it? Music. Music is what feelings sound like
Music speaks what cannot be expressed, soothes the mind and gives it rest, heals the heart and
makes it whole, flows from heaven to the soul To stop the flow of music would be like the
stopping of time itself, incredible and inconceivable (ThinkExist).
For over two hundred years, our right to express ourselves by learning and growing
through music was protected by our First Amendment right to free speech and expression; the
Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech (Bill
of Rights). In the 1980s, however, a controversy stirred: many people started speaking out on
how we need to censor offensive music and forewarn parents of the offensive music their
children are listening to. I refer to it as offensive to denote that it is a belief different to
every human being, based on religious and cultural upbringing, and therefore should not be
considered when making an important government decisionbut it was.
Directly violating our First Amendment right, the government agreed to censor
offensive music and regulate albums deemed as such. These albums could only be
purchased by legal adults (18 years or older) and only with proper identification. Some retail
stores refused to sell albums with the notorious Parental Advisory sticker. Only if the
offensive material was erased from the music would the albums be considered for retail
sale. Record labels and artists started to change their album designs, lyrics, and even omit
songs on their records to fit the retail chain Wal-Marts standards. Wal-Mart executives state,
It is our right as a retailer to offer the type of products we want and that we feel our

Johnson 2
customers want to buy. Different forms of music, like other products, are available through
other retailers, record clubs, or different purchasing means (Consumers Research). This
regulation of music violates our constitutional rights. Censoring music prevents the joy of
music from being spread and promotes anti-intellectualism, a growing problem in todays
society.
One might wonder how anti-intellectualism and music censorship relate. Richard
Hofstadter, an esteemed American historian, professor, and author, defined intellectualism in
his essay, Democracy and Anti-Intellectualism in America:
What is an intellectual, really? This is a problem of definition [found to be] far more
elusive than I had anticipated. The distinction that we must recognize is one
originally made by Max Weber between living for ideas and living off ideas. The
intellectual lives for ideas; the journeyman lives off them. [Society] almost
[demands] that one be an anti-intellectual, in which those who live off ideas seem to
have an implacable hatred for those who live for them. Those few intellectuals who
have in some way survived that tension are few, pitiable, and on the whole sterile
Certainly the intellectual, if he is nothing else, is one who relishes the play of the mind
for its own sake, for whom it is one of the major ends of life. The intellectual has a full
quotient of what [is called] idle curiosity. His mind, instead of falling it rest
becomes even more active. Indeed if we had to define him in physiological terms, we
might define him as the creature whose mind is most likely to be active after dinner
(258-9).
Keeping this passage in mind, one could establish that music censorship advocates
anti-intellectualism. To censor music stifles human emotion and thwarts personal growth, two
key components of anti-intellectualism. How could one strive to learn and make a truly
educated decision when they are only exposed to the positive, good, light side of things?

Johnson 3
Musicians and listeners alike live for ideasthe ideas of musical prose, feeling emotion, and
the freedoms of speech and expression. Censorship advocates live off ideasthe idea that it is
the music causing Americas youth to swear, beat women, have premarital sex, and the like.
What does the government consider offensive, anyway? Anything concerning
profanity, sexual references, violence, or other similar content (Labels, 1). However, the
government does not have the right to decide what ideas are unsuitable for its citizens. In
1998, an informational hearing entitled Labels and Lyrics: Do Parental Advisory Labels
Inform Consumers and Parents? was held to once again discuss offensive music and its
negative effects on todays youth, and how parental advisory stickers aid in protecting
children from violent images. Solange E. Bitol, a member of the American Civil Liberties
Union legislative counsel, reported in her prepared statement to the board1:
[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content
[It] forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or
3

Bitol cites several court cases to describe the explicit intentions of the First Amendment in her

prepared statement to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Labels, 40-2).

ideas at the expense of others Our Constitution commands that government may
not prohibit the expression of an idea itself offensive or disagreeable [B]ecause
music possesses inherent artistic value, no work of music alone may be declared
obscene Speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or
images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.
One must reflect on these true implications of freedom of speech. Why should these
elementsprofanity, sexuality, violencebe taken out of our music? If music is what
feelings sound like, why cant we hear how it feels to be profane, to be sexual, to be violent?
All of these stir up strong emotion, and as humans we are allowed to feel these emotions. It is

Johnson 4
even therapeutic sometimes to hear how other people perceive the same emotions they
experience. Our ability to think consciously and interpret our feelings enough to express them
is what separates man from beast; we create music in honor of love, hate, happiness, anger,
joy, sorrow, and every other human emotion. If music is censored, controlled, and regulated,
our right to free speech and expression, and even our feeble attempts at intellectualism, are
hindered.
Also, Bitol references the court case Miller vs. California to further explain how
offensive lyrics do not fit within the category of obscenity. For something to be obscene, it
must be determined that: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the
work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable law; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific value (Labels, 42). The third determinant is considerably difficult to come by;
music is by its nature artistic, and therefore no single work of music could be considered
obscene.
Some argue that negative feelings expressed through music are harmful to the pursuit
of intellectualism. They argue that if Americas youth is exposed to these obscenities, they
will emerge into criminals, troglodytes with no life ambition, the next generation of citizens
that feed like leeches off the government and taxpayers money. This idea is unsound and
must be discarded.
This whole controversy makes one wonder about the state of Intellectual Freedom in
America. The idea of Intellectual Freedom is that every person has the right to look for and
attain information freely without hindrance, and is important to the promotion of true
democracy. Censors remove information that they believe spread inappropriate ideas and

Johnson 5
society would be better off without. However, the First Amendment clearly gives us the right
to read about, hear, and see these ideas. This right protects the ones who have the ideas and
also the ones who want to censor the ideas. It is unconstitutional to censor ideas because they
are against a groups culture, race, ethnicity, religion, or political backgrounds
(Monkeyshines). A true intellectual knows that their beliefs and opinions are shaped due to the
nature of the opposing beliefs and opinions. Only once both ends of a spectrum are considered
may a true opinion be formed.
Constitutional rights aside, another problem lies in the fact that parents do not want
their children exposed to these negative ideas. Do these people really think that by stripping
their kids of something that helps defines them as a person, they are keeping them safe? Kids
today listen to whatever they want, regardless of the rules set by their parents and the
government. So what if they cant walk into a store and buy an explicit album? They have
friends who can. They have Limewire to download tunes. They have YouTube to watch music
videos. Despite how hard a parent may try and hinder their childrens personal growth by
banning and censoring music, the kids still find a way to listen to it.
Because of all the lyrical emotion bursting out of the radio, censorship advocates
blame music for the violent nature of children today. Since the 1980s, the rate of violent
juvenile crime has increased dramatically. Former U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (RTX) believes that it is becoming epidemic that children are committing horrible violent
crimes, including murder. You have to wonder what is it in the culture that is allowing young
people to think that this is an out when people are very upset and frustrated (Labels, 6).
Music companies are bombarded with the accusation of creating music to exploit the attention
of teenagers and not for the sake of musical expression (Labels, 9).

Johnson 6
Unfortunately, censorship advocates tend to attack musical artists and their work,
instead of perhaps helping children to understand and criticize music lyrics. While there is no
doubt that music effects youth behavior, we cannot jeopardize fundamental liberties as a
response to the social problems influencing todays youth. As an alternative to censorship,
media literacy classes should be available to teach understanding the messages conveyed and
the strategies of media enterprises. An educated and critical population of young people will
inherently be less apt to be negatively influenced by offensive images and lyrics (Labels,
35-6).
However, it is not as if music is creating false scenarios for the youth to envision and
carry out. The musical genres under scrutiny from the governmentrock, rap, and rhythm
and blues as the main onesare such because many songs depict killing people, robbery,
raping women, and doing drugs. These events, albeit horrific, happen in todays society,
whether there are songs dedicated to them or not. Liam Howlett, a member of the frequently
censored band Prodigy, stated, We dont have to say its not about [these events], because its
obviously not about that. Its more to fit the music. Its almost too in-your-face to be
offensive (Billboard). If they are not exposed to them through music, children will be
exposed to them through television, movies, magazines, and every other sort of media out
there. [S]topping the music will not stop the violence in our streets, or the drug abuse in our
neighborhoods, or guns in schools. Young people need solutions, not scapegoats (Labels,
Rosen, 33).
While the increasing instances of violent youth behavior is alarming, the culpability
cannot lay solely with the music. Krist Novoselic, a former member of the controversial rock
band Nirvana, stated during the Labels and Lyrics hearing, We have to move beyond the
grainy black and white approach of blaming lyrics. We need to move forward and apply full

Johnson 7
spectrum high definition solutions to the challenges facing our Nation, and especially youth.
He went on to explain the differences of mindfulness and mindlessness in terms of
intellectualism, and how prohibition will neither help the mindful nor mindless. It is only
through awareness and its advocacy that we can empower ourselves and ultimately the
world (Labels, 32).
Carole Shields, the president of People for the America Way, believes that parents who
want to control what their children listen to should take that responsibility upon themselves.
She stated, We cant save our children from harm by having the government control what
they can see and hear There are no shortcuts for raising children. We must not delude
ourselves into thinking that there is any single cause or any easy solution Its up to us to
stay aware of what our children are doing, of what the influences are in their lives, and to
intercede personally when necessary to keep them out of harms way (Labels, 35). Parents
cannot sit back idly and expect the government to parent their children. It is not the job or
responsibility of public officials to dictate what music is good or bad, appropriate or
inappropriate, and what is ultimately worthy of being produced (Labels, Matlins, 32).
Ultimately, parents cannot rely on the government to rear their children for them. In
todays technologically advanced society, it is no longer difficult for kids to be able to access
music that the law says they cant listen to. The rates of juvenile violence cannot be affected
solely by the violent and angry lyrics that some artists use as their form of artistic expression.
The ability to openly explore music is protected by our First Amendment rights and allows
people to make informed, intellectual decisions.
Since what is considered offensive and what is not is highly debatable, the entire
concept of censorship is unsound. Our country was founded on the concepts of freedom,
democracy and eradicating prejudice; if we were to truly follow those ideals, the question of

Johnson 8
obscene content unfit for children would be void. Trying to stifle the expression of thought
and feeling through music indirectly stifles the drive for intellectualism. A person cannot
evolve into an intellectual unless they are permitted to feel and think freely and come to their
own conclusions, without the obstruction of a government that hinders personal growth
through experience. Only once the government grants back our rights to free speech and
expression by abolishing music censorship can we begin to eradicate the current social
problems in America that allow anti-intellectualism to run rampant.

Johnson 9
Works Cited
"Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute.
Web. 10 Dec. 2009. <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights>.
Hofstadter, Richard. Democracy and Anti-Intellectualism in America. Reading Popular
Culture: An Anthology for Writers. 2nd Ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.,
2007. 258-9. Print. 19 Nov. 2009.
"Intellectual Freedom." Monkeyshines on the Library...Information for You! (2004): 138.
MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
More chains may pull Prodigy set if it's not stickered." Jeffrey, Don, and Dominic Pride.
Billboard 109.51 (1997): 6. EBSCO MegaFILE. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
"Music quotes." ThinkExist.com Quotations. Web. 01 Dec. 2009.
<http://thinkexist.com/quotations/music/>.
United States. Cong. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. "Labels
and Lyrics: Do Parental Advisory Labels Inform Consumers and Parents?" 105th
Cong., 2nd sess. S. Doc. 0-16-060523-7. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1998. 1, 6, 9, 32-3, 35-6, 40-2. Print. 19 Nov. 2009.
"Wal-Mart cleans up musicians' acts." Consumers' Research Magazine 80.1 (1997): 40.
EBSCO MegaFILE. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.