There has long been debate over the people's right to freedom of expression, and the word censorship is often at the center of this debate. The First Amendment to the Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," therein guaranteeing citizens of the United States the right to freely express themselves. Although not explicitly stated, this freedom of expression includes not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of artistic expression, whether spoken, sung, painted, or photographed. If the Constitution already guarantees these freedoms, then why all the fuss over censorship?
The argument over censorship is two-fold: One, who is allowed to censor, and two, what material should or should not be censored. According to the First Amendment, the government cannot pass laws barring the freedom of expression. While the government isn't allowed to censor, it has passed laws that exclude some forms of expression. For example, libelous material is illegal, which means you cannot knowingly lie and purport your information to be true. Further, the government disallows any information that causes others to disrupt the peace. In either of the aforementioned cases, we do not apply the term censorship, as the information or material has been found to infringe on the rights of others. If the government passes legislation preventing the printing of information about foreign policy, though, it has denied people their right to choose which information they read. Further, it has prevented the people from making informed decisions about their government, who they elect based on this type of information.
While the government cannot censor, the First Amendment does not apply to institutions, businesses, or people not funded by the government. Therefore, a radio station can choose not to play a song, just as a newspaper can choose not to print particular articles. While these businesses are withinlaw library lyrics their legal rights, those decisions still deny the public access to that song or article. Like a blindfold over our eyes, censorship has occurred. The question one should ask now is "What characterizes information that a business or group would censor?" In most cases, censorship occurs when a group, business, or library thinks that an item contains objectionable material. On the surface, this seems not only acceptable, but also necessary. After all, young children might see violent images or hear graphic lyrics. The debate over censorship flares up because people cannot clearly define what constitutes violent or graphic material.
If violent images cannot be clearly defined, then clear laws cannot be made to protect those who might be affected by them. Lawmakers and our government often agree that they have a responsibility to prohibit truly obscene materials. Even if a seventy-five percent majority feels that a particular CD contains obscene lyrics, can the government stop the other twenty-five percent of people from listening to it? If that happens, artists lose their First Amendment rights to free expression because they cannot produce the songs they want to sing. Suppose a majority feels the Venus de Milo is obscene? Students in our country would then be denied exposure to a work that the rest of the world studies. Do we label rock and roll or rap music with a "Parental Advisory" sticker? If so, operas like Madame Butterfly, which deal with sexual content, should receive the same treatment. As lawmakers ponder these same situations, we as citizens must ask ourselves what we give up if laws are passed regarding censoring certain materials.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect American citizens from the government abusing its power—they provide the structure for many of our freedoms. The First Amendment in particular protects our freedom to express ourselves, standing as a guide to lawmakers, politicians, and individlaw library lyricsuals. The founders of our country set up the government to ensure certain freedoms, and we must recognize that we give up these freedoms when we allow censorship to occur. Some might say that you cannot compare the lyrics of certain music to a great work of art, and they might be right. The First Amendment was created to stop censorship, however, not to stop ridiculous forms of expression. The fear in limiting any form of expression comes when we don't know where to draw the line: today graphic lyrics, tomorrow any artwork containing nudity. A variety of people find objectionable content in television, movies, artwork, books, and music. As citizens of this country, however, we have the freedom not only to express ourselves using these mediums, but also to choose which of the forms we want to read, hear, or observe. No one can force us to watch a television program or read a book. Instead, we must force ourselves to stay educated about issues that concern us and continue exercising our own freedoms of expression and choice.
One could point to such instances as an episode of "Postcards from Buster" in which a homosexual couple that had adopted kids was taped but they were not allow to air the show because those opposed to showing such a family in a good light forced the government and the government agencies that control PBS and its government funding forced PBS not to show it. This could not be considered anything but censorship but because their was no group or money to take it to court it was never acted upon. This is freedom of speech in America where the dollar and who controls it controls the freedom of speech. You could also point to the political contribution of corporations where because of their ability to fund politics and politician give them a much greater voice in elections than any individual therefor these corporations in effect control the government rather than the people who cannot possibly match their money.
No comments:
Post a Comment