Today, in the 1990's, citizens in our society
are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction. From the hate lyrics of Gun's 'N Roses to the
satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit
graphical content of today's movies, the issue is how much society is going to
permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line. The freedom of speech has always been
considered a right, but that doesn't mean that you can shout, "Fire!"
in a crowded movie theater. The real
question is whether such material is harmful or dangerous to our society.
Many people are asking whether or not we should
censor offensive material. They believe
that some material is too obscene for society to hear or see. The advocates of censorship get riled up
because the movie rating council doesn't give a move an R-rating for having the
occasional f-word. One rap group, 2 Live
Crew, has already had one of their albums banned because in one song they used
explicit references to male genitals and 87 references to oral sex. They used the word "bitch" more
than 100 times and the f-word more than 200 times.
Although most people agree that we are being
overwhelmed with offensive material, there is no consensus on how to deal with
the problem. There are three possible
solutions. The first is the possibility
of government censorship, which would include laws and penalties for breaking
these laws. The second solution is
self-imposed censorship by individuals and corporations. The third solution is total free speech with
no censorship.
The first possible solution is government
censorship. In the past government legal
actions have been taken to control offensive messages. For example, in 1988, the Ku Klux Klan wanted
to appear on a Kansas City, Missouri public access cable channel. The city council decided that it would be
better to shut the public access cable channel down instead of letting the KKK
air their show. Later, under the
pressure of being sued, the city council reversed their decision.
Critics of this sort of action agree that these
offensive messages do exist, but legal action is not the way to deal with
them. They believe that no individual
acts the way the messages portray just because the messages exist. Another belief is that legal actions will
intimidate creative people because it makes them afraid of having to pay a fine
to the government for violating obscenity laws.
The second possible solution is private-sector
censorship. While some people feel that
government officials are the best way to restrict offensive messages, others
feel that self- censorship is a more effective method. A recent series of incidents suggests that
executives in many private firms have begun doing just that. Book publishers, TV stations, and others have
drawn the line when faced with words or images that are tasteless or
offensive. For example, in 1990, Andy
Rooney, a CBS news correspondent, was suspended for his racist remark,
"Blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones...
have the most children."
Another episode of self-imposed censorship is
when George Michael released his song "I Want Your Sex." In 1987, AIDS and other sexual diseases were
rampantly spreading and his song condoned casual sex. The MTV executives also sent the video for
this song back because of the explicit, sexual images.
A third incident happened when MTV drew the
line again, this time with Madonna's video for "Justify My
Love." They said that the video
illustrates Madonna's erotic fantasies.
It was said to be "too hot to handle."
The advocates of the second solution agree that
America is suffering from a deluge of offensive messages, but they feel that
the best way of dealing with the problem is not government censorship, but private-sector
censorship.
The critics of this point of view think that
private-sector censorship will not be enough.
They believe that the entertainment industry will not be able to control
itself. Private-sector restrictions do
not have the authority of the law, therefore they cannot successfully draw the
line between what can and cannot be said in public.
The third and final possible solution is no
censorship at all. While many Americans
are troubled by what they feel is offensive speech, and feel that it should be
restricted by law, advocates of the third solution disagree. They feel that there is more harm in
restricting free speech than by the offensive speech itself. In the bill of rights, the first amendment
says, "Congress shall make no long abridging the freedom of
speech." The first amendment was
intended to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majorities. The advocates of this view feel that the minority
has a right to express themselves regardless of the opinion of the majority.
Free speech matters because it encourages
creativity. Without the freedom of
speech, America would probably be dull and drab like a communist country such
as the former USSR. For example, the
comedy of Andrew Dice Clay, considered offensive by some, shouldn't be censored
from those who find him humorous
Freedom of speech is an important part of any
democratic country. While some people
may find Rush Limbaugh's portrayal of President Clinton offensive, his show
should not be censored. This is the price
that we pay to live freely in a democratic society.
Censorship does not have to be the
solution. You always have the right to
change the channel or put down a book.
You have control over what you hear, see, or read. You are not forced to see or hear the
offensive speech.
Opponents of the "first amendment
view" believe that "just saying no" is not enough. For example, children most likely will not
say no. This is why these people believe
that the government should at least have the right to censor what children see.
Some people believe that censorship is the
answer, others do not. I believe that
this issue will be left up to the courts to decide. I fear that the media may become a swamp of
regulations with no more entertainment value whatsoever, and I hope that this
never happens. I think that the first
amendment is a great right and that we should never abridge it.
No comments:
Post a Comment