You have read “The First Amendment and Censorship” and “Pros and Cons of Music Censorship” and have answered some questions about what you have read. Now write your argumentative essay in the space provided.
Music censorship is a hot topic. Some believe music should be censored, while others believe it is unconstitutional.
Weigh the claims on both sides, and then write an argumentative essay in your own words explaining whether you believe music should be censored or not and why.
Be sure to use evidence from BOTH texts in your argumentative essay. Write your answer in the space provided.
Before you write, be sure to:
think about ideas, facts, definitions, details, and other information and examples you want to use;
think about how you will introduce your topic and what the main topic will be for each paragraph;
develop your ideas clearly and use your own words, except when quoting directly from the source texts; and
be sure to identify the sources by title or number when using details or facts directly from the sources.
Now write your argumentative essay in the space provided. Be sure to:
introduce your claim;
support your claim with logical reasoning and relevant evidence from the texts;
acknowledge and address alternate or opposing claims;
organize the reasons and evidence logically;
use words, phrases, and clauses to connect your ideas and to clarify the relationships among claims, counterclaims, reasons, and evidence;
establish and maintain a formal style;
provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented; and
check your work for correct grammar, usage, capitalization, spelling, and punctuation.
Passage 1: The First Amendment and Censorship
By Phillip Jones
The writing of the US Constitution spurred numerous debates; some claimed that it would not prevent the head of the central government from becoming a tyrant. They demanded a bill of rights that would establish the rights of citizens, so James Madison wrote a bill of rights that listed actions prohibited by the government. These rights ensured liberties by limiting the government’s ability to interfere with citizens’ lives. The Bill of Rights became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment reads:
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.
Consider the prohibition against abridging freedom of speech. The guarantee of freedom of speech enables people to discover, learn, and understand different points of view. A person is free to decide if an idea is worthwhile without pressure from government officials to choose one idea over another. Freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions in music, visual art, and the written word.
The Parental Advisory label is a warning label first introduced by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 1985 and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) in 2011. It is placed on media with excessive profanities or inappropriate references, with the intention of alerting parents of potentially unsuitable material for younger children. The label was first affixed on CDs and cassette tapes, and now it is included on digital listings offered by online music stores. (Source: Wikipedia.org)
Note that the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law….” Over the years, the US Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment limits the actions of any official at all levels of government, be it in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch. However, the First Amendment is not applicable to private groups or individuals—meaning individual persons and private companies can suppress ideas or information. They can erect the barbed wire fence of censorship whether others consider it right or wrong.
Consider this example of allowable censorship with relationship to the music industry. In August 2012, Melissa Webster wrote for The Huffington Post about Walmart’s censorship of music in a case of artist versus corporation. Webster reported that in 2009, the rock band Green Day refused to sell their CDs in Walmart because they opposed the company’s “insistence that they censor the music so it would be more family-friendly.” The music had to be clean and free of profanity, which was somewhat of a Green Day hallmark. “In a particularly ironic Orwellian twist, ‘clean’ is the new word for censorship,” Webster said. “Clean albums. Clean videos. Clean songs. I kid you not.” During 2012, Green Day produced both “clean” and uncensored versions of their albums.
As a private business, Walmart can enforce censorship legally, though the government does not have the same ability to do so within the confines of the First Amendment. As an example, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which included provisions intended to protect adolescents under 18 years of age from “offensive or indecent” material circulated on the Internet. In the case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), all nine justices of the Supreme Court determined that Internet restrictions violated freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. “The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship,” Justice Stevens said.
Passage 1: The First Amendment and Censorship
By Phillip Jones
The writing of the US Constitution spurred numerous debates; some claimed that it would not prevent the head of the central government from becoming a tyrant. They demanded a bill of rights that would establish the rights of citizens, so James Madison wrote a bill of rights that listed actions prohibited by the government. These rights ensured liberties by limiting the government’s ability to interfere with citizens’ lives. The Bill of Rights became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment reads:
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.
Consider the prohibition against abridging freedom of speech. The guarantee of freedom of speech enables people to discover, learn, and understand different points of view. A person is free to decide if an idea is worthwhile without pressure from government officials to choose one idea over another. Freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions in music, visual art, and the written word.
The Parental Advisory label is a warning label first introduced by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 1985 and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) in 2011. It is placed on media with excessive profanities or inappropriate references, with the intention of alerting parents of potentially unsuitable material for younger children. The label was first affixed on CDs and cassette tapes, and now it is included on digital listings offered by online music stores. (Source: Wikipedia.org)
Note that the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law….” Over the years, the US Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment limits the actions of any official at all levels of government, be it in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch. However, the First Amendment is not applicable to private groups or individuals—meaning individual persons and private companies can suppress ideas or information. They can erect the barbed wire fence of censorship whether others consider it right or wrong.
Consider this example of allowable censorship with relationship to the music industry. In August 2012, Melissa Webster wrote for The Huffington Post about Walmart’s censorship of music in a case of artist versus corporation. Webster reported that in 2009, the rock band Green Day refused to sell their CDs in Walmart because they opposed the company’s “insistence that they censor the music so it would be more family-friendly.” The music had to be clean and free of profanity, which was somewhat of a Green Day hallmark. “In a particularly ironic Orwellian twist, ‘clean’ is the new word for censorship,” Webster said. “Clean albums. Clean videos. Clean songs. I kid you not.” During 2012, Green Day produced both “clean” and uncensored versions of their albums.
As a private business, Walmart can enforce censorship legally, though the government does not have the same ability to do so within the confines of the First Amendment. As an example, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which included provisions intended to protect adolescents under 18 years of age from “offensive or indecent” material circulated on the Internet. In the case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), all nine justices of the Supreme Court determined that Internet restrictions violated freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. “The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship,” Justice Stevens said.
Music censorship has always been a contentious issue, with arguments on both sides. Some people argue that music should be censored in order to protect listeners, particularly younger ones, from explicit and inappropriate content. Others believe that censoring music goes against the principles of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. After considering both sides of the argument, I firmly believe that music should not be censored.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states that Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. This guarantee of freedom of speech allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without interference from the government. This right extends to various forms of expression, including music. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what they consider valuable and worthwhile, without government officials pressuring them to conform to a certain viewpoint.
Censorship can also be seen as a violation of an artist's creative expression. The Parental Advisory label, introduced by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), serves as a warning for potentially unsuitable material. However, this is done voluntarily by the industry and does not constitute government censorship. In the case of Green Day refusing to sell their albums in Walmart, the band opposed the company's request to censor their music to make it more family-friendly. This highlights the conflict between an artist's desire for creative freedom and a corporation's attempt to cater to a specific demographic. In this case, Green Day chose to release both censored and uncensored versions of their albums, giving consumers the choice.
It is important to note that while the government is limited by the First Amendment, private groups and individuals can still suppress ideas or information. Walmart, as a private business, has the legal right to enforce censorship. However, this should not be confused with government censorship. As the Supreme Court has determined, the First Amendment applies to government officials at all levels and limits their actions, protecting freedom of speech. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship, as stated by Justice Stevens in the case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
In conclusion, music censorship should not be supported. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression, which includes music. While private businesses may choose to enforce censorship, it is not the responsibility of the government. Censoring music not only limits artistic expression but also infringes on individuals' right to decide for themselves what they find valuable or appropriate. Society should embrace and respect the diversity of opinions and ideas, rather than imposing restrictions that go against the principles of a democratic society.