Censorship

Citizenship in America holds many rights. Among these rights are the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and the most valued, but largely manipulated, right of free speech. As an American citizen the right to free speech comes along with many responsibilities, but for the small percentage of people that exercise their right of free speech to a large public forum, it comes with many stipulations. The most recognizable figures under a barrage of criticism are artists. In our history classic books have been burned, news stories have been altered, and music has been turned off. What's interesting about this group is that the latter is not covered by the first amendment. In this essay I will be exploring the accusations made based on the influence of music, the backlash of the artists, and hypothesize how the scapegoat accusations and censorship of music will affect the twenty first century.

First, I would like to address the idea of music censorship. When the majority of the population thinks of music censorship the first amendment comes to mind. Americans are mislead in this assumption. The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." From this one may think that the censorship of music is prohibited based on the law of our constitution. However, when music is censored, our government does not do it, but instead it is done by special interest groups. In the instances that court hearings are conducted to decide whether or not an artist has the right to produce and mass market his or her work, the court hearings are rarely tried as a civil rights hearing. "According to existing laws, art is constitutionally protected speech. But music is not censored on the basis of art; it is censored on the basis of obscenity." (Nuzum 2) Special interest groups and corporations that claim to be protecting the interests of their consumers have enforced most of the censorship that has been placed on music in the U.S.. Organizations such as the Christian Collation, The American Family Association, and The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) have been leading the way in bringing offensive music into the mainstream eye. Their attempts to shield children from more distasteful music have been publicized and fueled all the way to the Supreme Court. Tipper Gore founded the Parents Music Resource Center in 1985. Gore, along with other board members were involved in the placement of warning labels on music. The labels read Parental Advisory-Explicit Lyrics and are placed on albums according to set guidelines. This instatement of the labels has been enforced, but there is still no evidence that the labels have deterred the youth from listening to the music. Instead there may be evidence that the labels have actually improved sales. PMRC head, Barbara Wyatt, recognizes this truth. "In an issue of the Roc, a magazine that opposes music censorship, Wyatt was quoted, "...Even if there is a label on [a recording], any child can buy it, and the forbidden fruit is often the most appealing fruit." (Hull 18). Censorship done by corporations is evident throughout history. Decisions made such as the Ed Sullivan show taping Elvis from the waist up was not ordered by the government, but instead agreed upon and enforced by the employees of the company. The Beatles, who are arguably one of the most influential recording groups in music history, were molded into a marketable product by their record label, Capitol Records. Their musical lyrics were controversial, but more offending than that was the original cover for their album, Yesterday and Today. The cover originally had the men wearing "white smocks covered with raw, bloody meat and surrounded by decapitated baby dolls." (Nuzum 1) This cover was recalled and then replaced with the four men wearing suits and smiling by the record label.

In recent history, stores such as Wal-Mart and K-Mart have taken stands against offensive music. Neither store will sell albums that have been tagged with the Parental Advisory sticker. "Wal-Mart has even go so far as to Ban Sheryl Crow's self titled album because one of the songs contains an unflattering comment about the retailer's gun sales policy." (Nuzum 10) Wal-Mart's ban of recordings with warning labels has caused much of the controversy since Wal-Mart is the largest distributor of music in the United States. Without Wal-Mart carrying major artists the labels stand to lose a lot of money. "Because of Wal-Mart's clout, record labels and bands will design different covers and booklets, omit songs from their albums, will electronically mask objectionable words and even change lyrics in order to gain a place on Wal-Mart's shelves."(Strauss). This has been dubbed "corporate censorship". The corporate censorship is thought to be more powerful

than government censorship. The next question to ask is what exactly is considered offensive? In this day when one thinks of music censorship, their thoughts may immediately jump to a new genre of music called rap. Others may think of alternative rock bands such as Marilyn Manson or Korn. With further investigation, however, one may find that all genres of music have come under fire and have carried the blame of problems in society. I was shocked to find that Mozart's 'Marriage of Figaro' was frequently censored (Economist 1) as well as the play that was based on the work. The work was censored because its servant hero fools his master. Jazz music was thought to be "the Devil's Music" when it appeared in the early 1900's. "At least sixty communities across the nation had enacted laws prohibiting jazz in public dance halls." (Carter and Lindsay 2) Elvis Presley who is now a popular cultural icon was often criticized and censored because of his dancing.

In the past ten years censorship has targeted the rap community. In 1990 a rap group known as 2 Live Crew released an album titled 'As Nasty as They Want to Be'. A nationwide manhunt for the group began and the album was banned in six states on the grounds that the album was obscene. The album was not to be sold without proof of identification from the purchaser proving that they were over the age eighteen or the store could face up to $100,000 in fines. In 1992 "MTV refused to air Public Enemy's video for "Hazy Shade of Criminal" because it violated the networks standard for violence." (Nuzum 6) Ice Cube's pictures were banned from most retail stores following the controversy of his album 'Death Certificate', the ban extended to