Censorship
I was reading the Censorship articles by Eric Nuzum, scro1ling through the earliest decades towards the present. After reading, scanning, browsing through each incident of censorship, I couldn’t help but realize that many of the things that were censored depended upon the “major events� of the time, whether it be Vietnam or 9/11. Earlier censorships had more to do with morality—and almost everything was immoral. Presently, censorship has more to do with protecting the child and allowing adults to make decisions about their music taste without government interference (although people who have access to the music can still impact adult’s access to the music.) So it got me to thinking, do we as a nation have a foundation upon which we decide to censor, or are we futile and do it based on what we see as best for the time. It is one thing to be social conscious and make changes in response to the bigger picture, but it is another thing to make wavering decisions that would affect a person’s livelihood. When we censor a musician for their lyrics, we are not just hurting the musician, we are hurting people who work directly and indirectly with him. It reminds me of the ads for not purchasing pirated movies; it is not just the big production companies that lose profit, but the blue collar workers that are a part of that business.
Censorship was also dependent upon who raised their voice the loudest. Many of the censorship also responded to interest groups cries of immorality or sense of injustice (anti—Semitism, homophobia).Even big markets like Wal-Mart and Kmart are willing to pull records off their shelves, especially if the artist had a song about them (Sheryl Crow). What is amazing is that censorship could be easily forgotten when censorship of an artist got in the way of profit. As in 1990 when “Wal-Mart and K-Mart refuse to stock Nirvana's second major label album, In Utero, because they object to the cover art and one of the song titles. Shortly after the record becomes the number one selling album in the country, the mass merchandisers strike a deal to carry the album. The album's back cover art is subdued and the title of the offending song is changed from "Rape Me" to "Waif Me."� So there is a way to compromise censorship after all.
After reading these articles, I listened to Ozzy Osborne’s Suicide Solution. It saddened me to hear this song. Some may say he is promoting suicide through the use of alcohol, but I think he is putting into words what many are feeling—maybe even him. I couldn’t help but wonder if this was his way of crying out for help. So, as a society, do we just censor his music or de we have an obligation to get him help? It reminds me of what had been happening to Britney Spears. Through the media, we saw her downward spiral, yet we were more concerned about what she would do next, instead of figuring out how to get her help. As much as these public figures have a responsibility to be good role model, what responsibility does society have for the public figure?
Moving onto Ice T’s Copkilla, I felt a lot of anger being released through this song. I see the lyrics as responses to police brutality that they may have incurred. Contrary to the belief, the police do not represent safety to everyone. Sometimes being a person of color or teenager may mean that the police are people to be wary of. I could see why people would feel threatened by the lyrics, but those who feel threatened may see the police as people who bring safety and those singing the lyrics as those who would disrupt that safety. This has to do with privilege—by having the privilege to feel safe with cops around us, we take away others privilege of being to share their wariness for what cops represent to them.