Man, bitches come and go, every nigga pimpin know
You saying it's secret, but you ain't gotta keep it on the low
Bitch choose with me, I'll have you stripping in the street
Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat
Now Nik my bottom bitch, she always come up with my bread
The last nigga she was with put stitches in her head"
--50 Cent, P.I.M.P.
The preceding is a segment of lyrics from a popular rap song by the artist 50 Cent. This song was played on many radio stations and its video has been shown all over the country. But MTv and BET networks are trying to change that. On September 25, Viacom's Chief Executive Officer Philippe Dauman made the announcement that networks such as MTv and BET no longer allow the words bitch, ho, or nigger in their music videos. Viacom's representatives believe these words are degrading to women and African Americans and should not be allowed in music, which brings up the argument concerning freedom of speech. Shouldn't music artists be allowed to express themselves as freely as someone on the street?
Viacom Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush said the restriction "isn't intended to pillory the entertainment industry or restrict freedom of speech. I respect the First Amendment and I note that great art is always controversial, but we must also accept responsibility in our freedom of expression.'' Rush believes that we must "balance free speech against discouraging media outlets from airing degrading material." According to Rush, the best way to achieve this balance is by banning words. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=20601087&sid=aGUjRJoPeHeU
Viacom is not the only one that feels this way. Russel Simmons, the founder of hip-hop record label Def Jam, also believes the same three words should be removed from all songs and albums and not allowed to be written into any future songs. He says, "The words 'bitch' and 'ho' are utterly derogatory and disrespectful of the painful, hurtful, misogyny that, in particular, African-American women have experienced in the United States as part of the history of oppression, inequality, and suffering of women." Simmons goes on to add, "The word 'nigger' is a racially derogatory term that disrespects the pain, suffering, history of racial oppression, and multiple forms of racism against African-Americans and other people of colour." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6586787.stm
To the casual observer it could seem like Viacom and Simmons are only trying to clean up the music industry, but when viewed more closely, it appears they are pushing for the censorship of music. To this argument Simmons retorts, "It is important to re-emphasise that our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship. Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African-Americans and other people of colour, African-American women and to all women in lyrics and images." But forbidding the music industry to include such words and forcing them to remove words from already written and published songs is an extreme form of censorship.
If the derogatory words are such an issue, there are other, less extreme ways of solving this problem. In songs like the one I have posted above, the words in question could be "bleeped" out when played on the radio, as most already are. Yes, this takes away from the presentation of the song, but it allows the artist to speak and write freely while still shielding viewers and listeners from the harsh words. Another solution is to only broadcast the songs and videos containing harsh words between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when children are most likely to be asleep. Though this does not stop adults from being offended, it can prevent children from hearing such harsh words. But I doubt these solutions would satisfy those who, like Simmons, feel so strongly about banning words in music. And there are many who do feel the same way as Simmons. An article in the New York Times describes how Simmons has the right idea when it says, "Mr. Simmons’s...deserves credit for...endorsing the kind of soft censorship that many of hip-hop’s detractors are too squeamish to mention. Hip-hop fans have come to expect that many of their favorite songs will reach radio in expurgated form with curses, epithets, drug references and mentions of violence deleted." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/arts/music/25hiph.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The article is describing how the American public has become so accustomed to the censorship already permitted in music.
Along with the artists' freedom to write and say what they want, an argument against the banning of derogatory speech could be that the listener or viewer has the right to hear what they want. This is the opinion of many music lovers. The public feels so strongly against the banning that they have taken steps to stop it. In a website created solely for fighting censorship of music, the author says, "We cannot just stand idle and have people...telling us what’s right and wrong and what we should and shouldn't be listening to. Not only does censorship infringe the musician’s rights, but it also infringes upon the consumer’s right to buy or hear whatever he or she pleases. The consumers should be the ones deciding what music is and isn’t offensive." http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/stadium/2742/censorinfo.html#Whatswrong
The author of this site is leading up to an important point. If the government is allowed to fully censor music, whats next? Censorship is definitely a slippery slope. It is easy to see why so many people are afraid of allowing the government to ban certain words and phrases, even offensive and derogatory speech. The public should have the right to decide which music to listen to, and if they prefer to hear music containing harsh language, then it should be their choice to hear it. Even though radio is already censored, the consumer should be able to purchase albums exactly as the artist wrote it, and not a censored version. To be honest, I hate the derogatory and offensive language used in music, especially in rap, but I hate censorship more, and prohibiting the use of certain words in music is definitely censorship.
Sources:
Viacom Article--http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGUjRJoPeHeU
Russel Simmons Article--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6586787.stm
New York Times Article-- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/arts/music/25hiph.htmlpagewanted=1&_r=1
Fight Censorship Article --http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/stadium/2742/censorinfo.html#Whatswrong
2 comments:
"Viacom's representatives believe these words are degrading to women and African Americans and should not be allowed in music."
From reading the article you posted, it seems that Viacom is just banning those words from being aired on its stations. We have covered in class that there are stronger restrictions on what is aired on television than on what is said, or in this case, what is recorded in music. This doesn't appear as much of a problem as the situation with Simmons. Simmons indeed is trying to remove the First Amendment rights of his label members.
Then again, he's paying the artists. He's the boss, so what he says, goes. If someone were to use those words in conversation with his/her boss in the business world, they'd be fired, and it's not really any different here.
I'm not in favor of what either Viacom or Simmons are doing here, but neither seem to me to be extreme issues. The Simmons situation is much worse than the Viacom one, in my opinion, though. Viacom is more justified than Simmons because there's a (more) captive audience and a limited spectrum for television.
Also, you mention that you'd be fine with "bleeping" words, and that appears to be what Viacom is going to do, just with somewhat larger frequency than it does now. At least that's how I understood the Bloomberg article.
Simmons can't do anything about it if one of his artists is to put out music on any of the other trillions of labels that would allow the "inappropriate" language. This softens the blow that Simmons is aiming at artists, and preserves the listener's "right to hear what they want."
Phew, that was longer than I thought I'd write. I hope I was clear enough. See you next week!
-Alex
Viacom is a private entity and they are in control of the lyrics that are produced by their sponsored artists, and if they dont want the words "ho," "nigger," or "bitch" to be associated with their company then they have the right to censor it. I agree that it is censorship but I don't think anyone can do anything about it since it is not a violation of the First Amendment; the government is not banning these words the comapany is. It goes back to the Intel case, since it was their server they could censor the emails in it.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if those three words were omitted from every song because I feel they perpetuate negative stigmatism surrounding women and African-Americans. This presents the question: Do ALL ideas contribute to the marketplace of ideas?
Post a Comment