Censoring music: Right or Wrong?

[Sugaree]

So lately I've been thinking about all the different types of artists and genres of music. I thought about all the songs that went out of the guide lines for the FCC and I thought to myself, "This is taking away the right to free speech."

However, I want to get a general opinion on this. Is censoring music right or wrong? Does it take away the right to free speech? In my opinion, it truly does take away that right. Why ramble on saying that everyone has the freedom of speech, but they take it away on the spot?

Poll added.

[theOperaGhost]

I have mixed opinions on this. I don't think a 10 year old needs to listen to someone singing "fuck your mother" in every song they listen to. Also, some people may really like the music but be offended by the vulgar and obscene language. I think the option of buying censored and non-censored music should be available.

Does it take away freedom of speech? I don't think so. If a song is available uncensored, it doesn't take away freedom of speech at all.

[Perseus]

I think censorship is the most stupid thing ever. I mean, why write the word in the script/song if it's jsut gonna be censored? I mean seriously, I may be opposed to all these rap songs swearing blantly, but I don't think it should be censored. I think it shouldn't be there period. I don't see many a poem with a lot of cussing in it. And that's what music is, poetry. I just don't think "fuck the police" and all that stuff should be in songs like in ever freaking chorus, or at all, really.

[Sugaree]

Does it take away freedom of speech? I don't think so. If a song is available uncensored, it doesn't take away freedom of speech at all.

Very true, Jared. But how can the government talk about the rights to say whatever you want when you want, yet they will so quickly censor a song? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

[The Batman]

Very true, Jared. But how can the government talk about the rights to say whatever you want when you want, yet they will so quickly censor a song? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

They can still say it they'll just be given a fine and if they are willing to pay it then they will say, "Fuck your mother" around a ten year old.

[theOperaGhost]

Very true, Jared. But how can the government talk about the rights to say whatever you want when you want, yet they will so quickly censor a song? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

Somewhat, but not really. There are exceptions to freedom of speech...ever heard of libel and slander? Like I said...some people like to listen to music, but are strongly offended by the vulgar lyrics. Should they be forced to listen to something else that they may not like? Why not make a censored version available?

[Bougainvillea]

Really, to me, if you can act like a decent person, and not talk about pussy, then your music should be fine.

So, I don't think it should be censored, because it shouldn't have to.

Seriously. People need to grow up.

[Delusion15]

I agree that there should be censored music and uncensored. It does not infringe on freedom of speech if there is both

[Sugaree]

Somewhat, but not really. There are exceptions to freedom of speech...ever heard of libel and slander? Like I said...some people like to listen to music, but are strongly offended by the vulgar lyrics. Should they be forced to listen to something else that they may not like? Why not make a censored version available?

Libel and slander I can completely understand. But when it comes to music, why do it?

It would be like censoring a work of Edgar Allen Poe or Shakespear because, somewhere in it, ther was something that offended you to a great degree.

Music is a living expression, just like poetry. So I'm highly agaist the censoring of it. I'm a musician myself, and I know you are too Jared, and I don't mind vulgar lyrics. I usually just ignore them. But when you censor the work of an artist, it isn't right. You are denying them the right to express themselves. Some songs have strong use of cursing, which turns me off of a song immediately, but I wouldn't want it censored. Quite the contrary. Let the artist express him/herself.

Yes, I understand fully that the government can do this. It's understandable to censor such songs because you wouldn't want your young child listening to songs like this. What would they learn? But technically, it's the parent's fault for letting their children listen to the music in the first place isn't it?

[Sage]

Well, there are only so many phrases that rhyme with motherfucker...

But, no, in all honesty, music shouldn't be censored. It's up to parents to decide what their kids should be allowed to listen to. From an artistic standpoint, artists thrive under censorship anyway. 'Fuck' doesn't mean a whole lot until you're not allowed to say it, y'know.

[INFERNO]

I'm a bit mixed on this. I'd say for certain music stores, they should still sell the music uncensored but they should put large clear warnings of the offensive content on the front as they currently do. It should also be up to the artist or band if they want to have a censored version of their music although the stores that sell the uncensored stuff shouldn't have to sell the censored version, so it's a risk on the artist or band's part.

As for music played on the radio or elsewhere, I think that it should depend on the channel or station. If it's a station that isn't meant to play such offensive music, then if there's music that should be censored, it shouldn't be played in the first place, although the radio or channel could still play it if they felt like it.

I'd say that if the child heard such music, then I wouldn't blame the parents in all cases. If the parents bought the uncensored version, then yes I'd blame them but if the child was listening to a station where such music isn't meant to be played and a censored or uncensored version is played, then I wouldn't blame the parents.

Overall, I'd say it'd depend on the place that's selling it or playing it; if it's a station that focuses on playing offensive material, then I wouldn't say to censor that station but rather censor the song if it's not on those particular stations meant for such offensive songs. I say this because the artist or band should be allowed to have their creation expressed as they intended it to some people at least.

If the artist or band doesn't want a censored version of it, well, that's their risk to take.

[Aves]

It depends what's is being censored. Words of emotion, or words of explicit action, or just wrong (like the "n" word)

I'm gonna use some language here to explain what I mean, so excuse my french :P

In the song Welcome Home by Coheed and Cambria they censor out: "Fucking up all I do", which is just explaining how he screws stuff up, but since fuck is a swear word the go and censor it.

Now in some random rap song there gonna be like: "I wanna fuck you, YEEEEEEEEEA!" if that's the case, then yes censoring it is in all means perfect. I think it is just wrong, and kids will take that and use it in the wrong context. Also if you put that in a song, get a life :P

[theOperaGhost]

You all say parents are responsible for what their kids listen to. Do you know how easy it is for a kid to get a friend to burn a CD for them? Listen to the radio? Find music on the internet? About the only way parents can prevent their kids from listening to something is stopping them from buying a CD at a store. I don't think there should be any vulgarity on the radio or TV and all CDs should be made available censored and uncensored.

I listened to a song by Ludacris the other day....that song was not an expression of anything...those were quite possibly the most vulgar lyrics I've ever heard in my life. I don't think that is artistry to describe sex with so much vulgarity that a person like me, who isn't easily offended, gets offended by.

[Sage]

You all say parents are responsible for what their kids listen to. Do you know how easy it is for a kid to get a friend to burn a CD for them? Listen to the radio? Find music on the internet? About the only way parents can prevent their kids from listening to something is stopping them from buying a CD at a store. I don't think there should be any vulgarity on the radio or TV and all CDs should be made available censored and uncensored.

You can teach your kids that just because they see something on TV or hear it in music doesn't mean it's the way they should act.

I listened to a song by Ludacris the other day....that song was not an expression of anything...those were quite possibly the most vulgar lyrics I've ever heard in my life. I don't think that is artistry to describe sex with so much vulgarity that a person like me, who isn't easily offended, gets offended by.

You may not find anything artistic about it (I'm not a fan of Ludacris myself, now) but it evokes feelings in people which is ultimately what art is meant to do.

[theOperaGhost]

You can teach your kids that just because they see something on TV or hear it in music doesn't mean it's the way they should act.



You may not find anything artistic about it (I'm not a fan of Ludacris myself, now) but it evokes feelings in people which is ultimately what art is meant to do.

I have no response to your first statement because it is the truth. Good parents can teach their kids to be good, however I think bad parents are the majority and there are getting to be more and more bad parents out there all the time, which means there are more and more bad kids out there all the time.

Do you consider porn art? Do you think porn shouldn't be censored? The lyrics to that Ludacris song were a vocal porno, in my opinion.

[Sage]

Do you consider porn art? Do you think porn shouldn't be censored? The lyrics to that Ludacris song were a vocal porno, in my opinion.

Some porn, yes. I suggest you go read up on the World of Whorecraft.

...No, this is not a joke.

[Modus Operandi]

It really depends on the context and the artist's reason for swearing. Pearl Jam has swears in thier songs that were censored in games, but they add to the impact of the song. Rappers like Ludacris, however, are TRYING to shock and outrage people. It's not a side effect of the lyrics, it's the PURPOSE of the lyrics.

I agree that censoring music because of the words it contains, not the context, is incredibly stupid and infringes on free speech. Like Jared said, there are exceptions to freedom of speech, and raps like the one Jared mentioned are incredibly offensive to 99.9% of the general population, and shouldn't be made in the first place, IMO. The censors really need to look carefully at context of the "bad words" and decide when they're appropriate and when they're not.

[Triceratops]

I agree with censorship to an extent.
I think there should always be the unedited version available for those who don't want the censored copy.

No, censorship is not stupid. I wouldn't particularly want my kids listening to a song with endless swearing and sexual content and yes I am aware that it's down to the parents responsibility to monitor what their child is viewing or listening to. So many kids can get hold of anything these days - good parenting or not.

I certainly don't think it takes away the freedom of speech, especially if the lyrics are incredibly offensive and completely vulgar. Freedom of speech or not, they are unacceptable and insulting to many. Although if I was insulted by someone's lyrics I would just choose to stay away from that piece at all costs...I'm just stating why I think censoring music can be somewhat reasonable.

[quartermaster]

You will have to first excuse some of my language within this post...

I am sorry, but some of these qualifications are a bit ridiculous; you cannot have a double standard on vulgarity. Vulgarity is vulgarity, thus context is irrelevant when talking about censorship. I doubt parents would really care as to what context a word like "fuck" was used in music, what they would care about is that the song used the word at all. Once again, the idea that there could be, or more importantly, should be a double standard on vulgarity is absurd, as if using words like "fuck" and "shit" in a so-called “artistic way,” somehow justifies the word and thus makes it acceptable.

It's tremendously easy to sideline one particular style of music, while at the same time justifying your own style, so let’s just part our cards on the table right away in that respect. That said, the pretense of even the possibility of a double standard is ridiculous; music should either be all-in or all-out in regards to governmental censorship, but please don't try to float this absurd idea that "context" justifies vulgarity. Make no mistake, this is not an argument for or against vulgarity, this is an argument against the idea that if a benchmark is set as to what is deemed “vulgar” by the government or people, there cannot be exceptions to that benchmark, just due to context (is “cunt” somehow less vulgar because the artist is calling someone a name and not talking about sex?).

Beyond all of that, I do not believe censorship should be “forced” upon any music type; I believe the government forcing anyone to censor their own work is absurd and a further example of unnecessary government encroachment into daily lives. Now, censorship over the radio waves is one thing, as technically the government holds sway over those (although I believe they should not), and as long as the government and people, as a whole, continue to run the waves, they should have the right to regulate the air as they see fit (I see that more as a property issue more than anything else).

[Camazotz]

Censoring music is most certainly limiting the rights and freedoms of free speech. I understand the concerns of people not wanting to hear vulgar language, but you have a choice of what you want to listen to. If you don't like listening to swearing, don't. If you don't want to listen to the Jonas Brothers, don't. There's no need for one to limit and restrain something you don't like. They have a right to swear on music, just like you have the right to not listen to their music.

[theOperaGhost]

Censoring music is most certainly limiting the rights and freedoms of free speech. I understand the concerns of people not wanting to hear vulgar language, but you have a choice of what you want to listen to. If you don't like listening to swearing, don't. If you don't want to listen to the Jonas Brothers, don't. There's no need for one to limit and restrain something you don't like. They have a right to swear on music, just like you have the right to not listen to their music.

But, as I've explained in my posts...some people love the music, just can't stand the lyrics. Take for instance Rage Against the Machine...they've got a pretty unique sound but their lyrics contain a lot of profanity. What is someone supposed to do if they love the sound of Rage Against the Machine, but can't stand the swearing? I see nothing wrong with having a censored version of their songs for those people to buy and listen to. Let's face it...most bands are in it for the money now...a censored version is still going to make them money. There are very few bands who are actually trying to get a message across in their music anymore, they just want money. They still make money, censored or not. I see nothing wrong with having both options available for consumers.

[ShatteredWings]

Bands CHOOSE to sell censord versions of albums....

If it was mandatory, i'd have a problem with it. But since it's their own choice to change their work, I'm not too conserned.


Also, it's not the government doing it. It's record lables, which are indipendant companies

[theOperaGhost]

Bands CHOOSE to sell censord versions of albums....

If it was mandatory, i'd have a problem with it. But since it's their own choice to change their work, I'm not too conserned.


Also, it's not the government doing it. It's record lables, which are indipendant companies

No, the record labels have to go by federal standards set by the FCC. You know those little Parental Advisory labels on CDs with explicit content? They come from the government.

[ShatteredWings]

Then explain how some record lables don't put the sticker on the CDs, nor do they say explicit content, when the songs are full of swearing and explicit content?

I really don't have a problem thought with having to inform the public on the content... saying you can't have it though is denying freedom of speach

[mrmcdonaldduck]

censorship is wrong full stop. it is only there because lazy ass parents arent watching there kids. guidelines are different though, they help people make desicions.

[theOperaGhost]

censorship is wrong full stop. it is only there because lazy ass parents arent watching there kids. guidelines are different though, they help people make desicions.

How do you consider them lazy ass parents? Are they supposed to watch their kids every moment of the day? Do you know how easy it is for a kid to get a friend to burn a CD with explicit content on it and give it to them at school? That makes it pretty easy for a kid to sneak explicit lyrics in without their parents knowing. I don't see how those parents are lazy ass.

I know that's how I got explicit music when I was younger...I got a friend to burn me a CD, then I only listened to it on my portable CD player and was very careful about hiding it from my mom. My parents are far from lazy, but it was very easy for me to sneak it by them. The problem is NOT lazy ass parents.

[quartermaster]

But, as I've explained in my posts...some people love the music, just can't stand the lyrics. Take for instance Rage Against the Machine...they've got a pretty unique sound but their lyrics contain a lot of profanity. What is someone supposed to do if they love the sound of Rage Against the Machine, but can't stand the swearing? I see nothing wrong with having a censored version of their songs for those people to buy and listen to. Let's face it...most bands are in it for the money now...a censored version is still going to make them money. There are very few bands who are actually trying to get a message across in their music anymore, they just want money. They still make money, censored or not. I see nothing wrong with having both options available for consumers.

If what you claim is true, that companies make even more money with a censored version released, then the market will dictate that they will create a censored version of that song regardless. What is unacceptable is the government forcing record labels to create a censored version of a song, as such a regulation is by nature, a usurpation on the rights of the people and company of which released the song.

Again, two options for the consumer is acceptable, and I agree that it is a good idea for companies to release two versions, however that option for two versions, in my opinion, should be left up to the company to decide (given market factors), not the federal government.

[INFERNO]

censorship is wrong full stop. it is only there because lazy ass parents arent watching there kids. guidelines are different though, they help people make desicions.

Lazy ass parents are to blame whenever a kid goes out with his/her friends and hears some explicit lyrics? You cant blame parents for every single thing that the kids do because the parents aren't always around 24/7. Parents don't follow their kids off to their friend's house and watch over their shoulder.

Also, with the increasing technology, a kid can just hear or see something on the Internet, TV, etc... . What if the kid hears or sees something on a school computer? Shall we blame the parents for that?

[Triceratops]

censorship is wrong full stop. it is only there because lazy ass parents arent watching there kids.

Are you really this ignorant?

[theOperaGhost]

If what you claim is true, that companies make even more money with a censored version released, then the market will dictate that they will create a censored version of that song regardless. What is unacceptable is the government forcing record labels to create a censored version of a song, as such a regulation is by nature, a usurpation on the rights of the people and company of which released the song.

Again, two options for the consumer is acceptable, and I agree that it is a good idea for companies to release two versions, however that option for two versions, in my opinion, should be left up to the company to decide (given market factors), not the federal government.

I don't believe I said companies make MORE money...I said that companies will still make money if the lyrics are censored or not.

[Rainstorm]

I'd like to say this, Censoring doesn't really help, if you think about it. Profanity is in movies, some TV shows, and so many other things in this modern times that your kids are going to be exposed to it at some time, and, at some time, use it. Plus, you have Youtube that kids will go to when they hear a censored song.


I have mixed feelings on the topics.

[Camazotz]

But, as I've explained in my posts...some people love the music, just can't stand the lyrics. Take for instance Rage Against the Machine...they've got a pretty unique sound but their lyrics contain a lot of profanity. What is someone supposed to do if they love the sound of Rage Against the Machine, but can't stand the swearing? I see nothing wrong with having a censored version of their songs for those people to buy and listen to. Let's face it...most bands are in it for the money now...a censored version is still going to make them money. There are very few bands who are actually trying to get a message across in their music anymore, they just want money. They still make money, censored or not. I see nothing wrong with having both options available for consumers.

I think it's a great idea to sell "clean" and "uncensored" versions of each albums. I just have a problem in general censoring music and not letting the artist express themselves through their music.

[INFERNO]

I'd like to say this, Censoring doesn't really help, if you think about it. Profanity is in movies, some TV shows, and so many other things in this modern times that your kids are going to be exposed to it at some time, and, at some time, use it. Plus, you have Youtube that kids will go to when they hear a censored song.


I have mixed feelings on the topics.

True, even if the profanity on television, radio, etc... was censored, there would always be the possibility that people can use profanity when talking to someone. However, with that being said, I don't think we should call it quits just because people may swear elsewhere. People are amazing at finding ways around various barriers but the idea is to have at least some barriers up so that profanity isn't everywhere in various medias. If some of that can be reduced, then it may be for the better.

[quartermaster]

I don't believe I said companies make MORE money...I said that companies will still make money if the lyrics are censored or not.

Regardless, my argument stands with both claims. If companies will, indeed, still make money if the music is censored, or if there is a censored option, the market will suggest such and companies will act accordingly. However, what you are arguing for, if I am correct in my understanding, is government intervention into a market to deliver a "progressive" standard.

That intervention into a market, forcing companies to use their resources to deliver an alternative product for a "progressive" agenda (any agenda is inherently wrong, but this is reminiscent of the progressive agenda that goes back to the early progressives of the late 1800s), is what I believe to be inherently wrong. The forcing of companies to censor work or have a "censored option" may not be a usurpation on freedom of speech, but it does defy a market intervention axiom and a forceful use axiom; it all comes down to coercion in the forcing of companies to deliver a product.

[theOperaGhost]

Regardless, my argument stands with both claims. If companies will, indeed, still make money if the music is censored, or if there is a censored option, the market will suggest such and companies will act accordingly. However, what you are arguing for, if I am correct in my understanding, is government intervention into a market to deliver a "progressive" standard.

That intervention into a market, forcing companies to use their resources to deliver an alternative product for a "progressive" agenda (any agenda is inherently wrong, but this is reminiscent of the progressive agenda that goes back to the early progressives of the late 1800s), is what I believe to be inherently wrong. The forcing of companies to censor work or have a "censored option" may not be a usurpation on freedom of speech, but it does defy a market intervention axiom and a forceful use axiom; it all comes down to coercion in the forcing of companies to deliver a product.

If this debate is about the government forcing censorship in music (which I now believe it is) I alter my argument a bit. I don't think it should be forced by the government. Companies that sell CDs should be the ones deciding such. Walmart and Kmart only sell clean versions of CDs because they don't want the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" label on the CDs they sell.

My original argument in this debate was only if I think censorship is a good or bad thing. I think censorship is good. I don't think the government should be forcing it though. Leave it up to the companies and corporations selling the product.

[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagg]

I have mixed opinions on this. I don't think a 10 year old needs to listen to someone singing "fuck your mother" in every song they listen to. Also, some people may really like the music but be offended by the vulgar and obscene language. I think the option of buying censored and non-censored music should be available.

Does it take away freedom of speech? I don't think so. If a song is available uncensored, it doesn't take away freedom of speech at all.

I completely agree with this. Most songs that are censored do have it uncensored as well.

[quartermaster]

If this debate is about the government forcing censorship in music (which I now believe it is) I alter my argument a bit. I don't think it should be forced by the government. Companies that sell CDs should be the ones deciding such. Walmart and Kmart only sell clean versions of CDs because they don't want the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" label on the CDs they sell.

My original argument in this debate was only if I think censorship is a good or bad thing. I think censorship is good. I don't think the government should be forcing it though. Leave it up to the companies and corporations selling the product.

I see, perhaps a misunderstanding on my end, but that said, we are of a like mind on this issue. I do agree that a company has a right to censor what they please, and I implore those efforts, but any government provision to have it done I disagree with.

[ShatteredWings]

Technically, censoring music is illegal by the US constitution

First amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Yet,
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions."
site (http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html)

So they can't censor music.... they can censor the radio, worldwide communications, and TV.
But music on CD isn't covered by the fcc. Artists produce censored versions to comply with the requirements to be on radio, which is why they're often called "radio edits"