F&! Censorship!

I once saw a button on someone’s book bag that said “Fuck Censorship”. The word “fuck” was the biggest word on the button. At first I thought, ‘Wait, what?’ Then my brain processed the words and I thought: ‘Wow, she must be brave. Wouldn’t she get in trouble for that?’ My second thought is a surprising one in a nation of supposedly free speech. The word “fuck” is not obscene according to the definition of obscenity, which states:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest ... (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.… (Dileonardo)

In fact, the more one says the word, or any “obscene” word, it loses its offensive meaning. Censorship is against the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, among other things. Censorship prevents artists from painting what they want to paint, musicians from fully expressing themselves, and newspapers and book sellers and/or authors from truly utilizing their freedom of speech. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, there are two definitions of censorship: n. “One who supervises conduct and morals: as a an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter.” transitive verb. “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” This happens every day in society. This is, as mentioned before, surprising in a nation of ‘free’ speech. Why should the government decide what’s ‘objectionable’? However, censorship didn’t become a major issue until December of 1984 when Tipper Gore co-founded The Parents Music Resource Center, an organization that cleans up “explicit” lyrics. She started this because she thought "the images frightened my children, they frightened me! The graphic sex and the violence were too much for us to handle." (Geocities, par. 2)She thought that rock music promoted violence. She wrote to the RIAA(Recording Industry Association of America) demanding that they "exercise voluntary self-restraint perhaps by developing guidelines and/or a rating system, such as that of the movie industry." Thus warning labels, or parental advisory stickers as they are known today, were born.(Geocities, par. 5) Said Derek Smalls, the bassist for the band Spinal Tap: "There should be warning labels for politicians."(Geocities, quotes) Doing all these things earned Gore a lot of enemies throughout the music business. “…rocker Frank Zappa memorably called her a ‘cultural terrorist.’”(Richardson)

Paintings are one of the most censored art forms. Targets include female nudity, religious content, politically sensitive subjects, nude drawings, and supposedly sexist or racist portrayals. Ten percent of all challenges to artwork say that teachers promote homosexuality with nude drawings. Teachers have also been fired and harassed over standing up against these attacks. Whatever happened to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”?(U.S. Constitution) Even worse, in 1994, a group of parents marched into an elementary school art room and took ten art books and eight prints featuring such artists as Picasso, Renoir, and Gauguin. They took these paintings because they considered them “pornographic”, “perverted”, and “morbid”. (Anderson) This is called stealing. Also, the last time I saw one of these “perverted” paintings, there was nothing “morbid” or “pornographic” about them.

Censorship prevents musicians from fully expressing themselves. “A constant challenge faced by contemporary music groups is to prevent their lyrics from becoming too bland.” writes Patrick Garry, author of An American Paradox: Censorship in a Nation of Free Speech. His words are wise and definitely ring true for society today. When Green Day released their song “American Idiot” as the first single off their new album American Idiot, they were rejecting, as the song says: “a nation under the new mania” and “the sounds of hysteria” leading to “the subliminal mindfuck America.” So it’s quite a surprise when the word ‘faggot’ was bleeped in this context: “Well maybe I’m the faggot America/I’m not a part of a redneck agenda/Now everybody do the propaganda/and sing along in the age of paranoia.” The lyrics definitely ring true for our society. Has society become so politically correct that it misjudges context and prevents artists’ views from completely coming across? Or is it just the fear and paranoia, as the song says, that are causing this flagrant break of the First Amendment? The word ‘faggot’ does not even qualify as an “indecent” word. Says Marjorie Heins of the Free Expression Policy Project: “‘Faggot’ is not a word that would qualify as indecent. This is clearly an instance of corporate censorship on the part of Clear Channel.” Although they were called many times about the bleeping, Clear Channel representatives declined comment. Now, to leave one with the words of Elliot Mincberg: “Bleeping a word like 'faggot' in this instance is not because the FCC has ever ruled on a case like this, but because people are afraid.”(Goodridge) In the last twenty years, concern has grown about the effect of rock and/or rap lyrics on children. Many states and cities have begun to make laws that put “offensive” music in the same category as tobacco. For example: “A high school in Wales, Wisconsin, now requires its students to show identification to read Rolling Stone magazine in the school library.” At this same school, a student was suspended for wearing a shirt that depicted the band Korn, an alternative metal band known for such songs as ‘Freak on a Leash’ and ‘Twisted Transistor’. My friends and I have all listened to these songs and there is nothing “offensive” about them. Now, how are the above acts of censorship okay when citizens of America are supposedly guaranteed freedom of speech? The answer is they aren’t. They aren’t okay. There have been organizations, such as The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center (Located at Vanderbilt University in Nashville) and the People for the American Way, who fight for the full freedoms promised in the First Amendment because, as Kenneth Paulson said, “Too many Americans forget that the First Amendment belongs to them.” (Dileonardo)

Censorship prevents newspapers and books from truly utilizing their freedom of speech. Take the Harry Potter books for example. The controversy over these books can only be matched with that of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Although the Potter books are fiction, the reason they have caused so much controversy is because of the hero is a wizard who is taught magic by elders at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI especially, has condemned these books as “a subtle seduction, which has deeply unnoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it can really grow properly.” A minister in Maine said: “Some of you young people should take a look at where you’re going. Hell is a very bad place.” So a fictional book can undermine Christianity, huh? Interesting. I thought there was such a thing as freedom of the press and of religion in this country. I guess not. I didn’t know Christianity was the only religion that mattered. I thought people were allowed to learn about and/or believe in other religions. Besides, the type of magic presented in Harry Potter isn’t even close to what pagans believe. That’s why it’s called fiction.(Boston) “…but millions of Religious Right activists around the country are now apparently convinced that the Potter series is part of a plot to lure youngsters into Wiccan groups.” (Boston) Honestly, when I first read this, I cracked up for about five minutes. Really. Ask Angelica. Is this what it has come to? Conspiracy theories about a FICTIONAL book that uses witchcraft in a good vs. evil situation?

Selina Jarvis, the chair of the social studies department at Currituck County High School, assigned her senior economics and civics classes “to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights.” (Rothschild) So one student took a picture of George Bush and put a red thumbtack through the picture’s head. Then he took a picture of himself next to the poster with a thumbs down sign. Simple illustration of the right to dissent(under the First Amendment), right? Not according to a Wal-Mart employee who developed the photo. The employee called the police on the student, who then turned the photo over to the Secret Service. Right to dissent, huh? Said the spokesman for the Secret Service: “We certainly respect artistic freedom, but we also have the responsibility to look into incidents when necessary. In this case, it was brought to our attention from a private citizen, a photo lab employee.”(Rothschild) Really? So that’s why a harmless picture illustrating the right to dissent was investigated, right? That’s hard to believe. Jarvis’ word to the reporters explains the incident best: “Ridiculous.”(Rothschild)

Censorship is against the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, among other things. Censorship prevents artists from painting what they want to paint, musicians from fully expressing themselves, and newspapers and book sellers and/or authors from truly utilizing their freedom of speech. In the beginning of this paper, the two definitions of censorship were presented. One of these definitions said: “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” It’s just as Patrick Garry’s book title states it is: An American Paradox: Censorship in a Nation of Free Speech. Why is it the government’s job to decide what’s objectionable and what’s not? That should be the parents’ job. It was also stated that the Harry Potter books have become embroiled in controversy because the main character uses witchcraft. Again, people seem to forget these books are fiction and are for entertainment purposes only. People should have the right to read what they want to read without this kind of trouble. Does it really have to be taken so far that people form conspiracy theories about a fictional book series’ true intentions? Or have the Pope condemn that same fictional book? Does it have to be taken so far that artists’ work (which is supposedly protected under the First Amendment) is refused a showing and gets teachers fired? Does it have to be taken so far that music artists’ lyrics meanings get completely warped because of radio and/or TV censorship? It doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it shouldn’t be this way. Not when there’s the Constitution, one of the greatest documents ever written, protecting citizen’s rights(freedom of speech especially). To put it more clearly: “Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” -Potter Stewart, an American judge and associate justice of the Supreme Court.