Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Should songs be under government consent?

  1. Jul 30, 2011 #1
    There are a lot of songs that have such a bad influence on society. Just look at all the songs at the start of 2000 that constantly promoted living the "gangster" life and violence... Pathetic.

    Its enough that people in certain areas are influenced by their environment to join the whole "gangster" life but why promote it with songs talking about violence or even killing?

    Look at this song for example:

    Minutes of influence for a girl to take a dirty picture.. Seriously now wtheck? Little girls listen to these things on the radio all the time and add it to their playlists. I have a little sister so songs like these also piss me off.

    Or songs such as:

    In which promote violence.

    I know its a free democracy by the people and for the people... but some people do more hurt then good.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 30, 2011 #2
    Who's going to decide what's good and bad?
  4. Jul 30, 2011 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    There are some highly atrocious songs out there, I can't remember the name of the song but I saw one a while ago that featured a group of "gangsters" standing round a table throwing money at naked girls grinding against them. I hate things like that with a passion, it's so demeaning and sends out the wrong image.

    Having said that there should definitely not be regulation, censorship does far more harm than good.
  5. Jul 30, 2011 #4
    A code of conduct would be made deciding on what should be permissible and what is beyond the line. The question who then becomes irrelevant - a group of people hired by a government/corporation/ or whatever.

    If a song is promoting gang and violence it shouldn't be easily accessed to the radio. I live in America and I see it around me.. people grow up influenced by rap and hip hop music. Which is fine, some rap is a form of poetry.. but when it is promoting violence and gang affiliation then it is in disdain.

    I mean come on.. do we really need more ignorant stuff in the U.S.?
  6. Jul 30, 2011 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It sells. You would be forced to make the federal government censor it. I see no two ways about it.
  7. Jul 30, 2011 #6
    You live in the belief that censorship is this ultimate evil. Do you believe that everything is uncensored in the government? There are a lot of corrupt things that goes behind our back and the news doesn't get out. That is a form of censorship.

    Censorship for songs would be good under the right circumstance. Talk about drugs, talk about sex, sure its a free country, but talk about violence and you are putting other people in danger.

    I was in a school where all the kids were heavily influenced by music and pursued gang life and violence. It was a pain in the ***. There can be much more good in the country if violence is not promoted.
  8. Jul 30, 2011 #7
    I don't fully understand your reasoning of argument. I would be forced to make the federal government censor it?

    Cocaine sells too, doesn't mean its good for you. But then again there are a lot of philosophical fuzzy areas of good and bad toward drugs. Violence though should definitely not be promoted, I don't see any good that can come from it.
  9. Jul 30, 2011 #8
    Nano, I basically agree with you. But the thing is, if you're going to outlaw these songs, then they'll become even more popular!! What's more fun for a teenager than to listen to banned songs?
  10. Jul 30, 2011 #9
    Things die along generations. It won't be popular for long just as living a farmers life of no technology or wearing 1960's clothes is no longer popular.

    If violent songs keep getting recycled (they are all pretty much the same) then the influence will stay through generations as long as it is allowed.

    The fact that it is allowed through mass media (the radio, t.v., etc.) shows just how much destructive influence it can have.

    We Americans are so intimidated by restricting freedom, we see it as an evil. Anyone that wants to censor music is a communist! Oops you got me.

    But people don't see that freedom is restricted such as war on drugs and gangs, and laws against prostitution (in most areas of U.S. except a certain area of Las Vegas to my knowledge).

    Who knows how much money is spent against the war on gangs, and how much suffering goes on because of violence. Fighting it at the root (influence) is the viable thing to do.

    Cut the leaves and tree grows some more, cut at the foundation and the whole tree comes tumbling down.
  11. Jul 30, 2011 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No I don't believe that censorship is an "ultimate evil" but looking at cases where it has been practised I believe it to do more harm than good in the majority of cases. Here in the UK we have a long http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom" [Broken] that included banning all "blasphemous" media. I would hate to see a return to such times.

    Surely you are agreeing with me by pointing out that corruption being covered up is a bad thing? Allowing censorship would only help corruption stay hidden, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy" [Broken]

    There are two problems here, firstly by allowing censorship in the first place you are getting to a situation whereby you have people in a position to decide what should and should not be banned. It may start out as an effort to prevent promoting gang violence but it could easily change into a situation whereby the Censor's Office is full of people who use it to push a political agenda. Secondly any half decent lawyer or politician can spin almost anything to suddenly become the banned topic, to use an example I could easily come up with a decent argument as to why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables" [Broken] was a musical with a strong pro-violence theme. Care to ban that?

    I know I sound factious but this is how censorship goes, it can start off with a reasonable attempt at addressing a specific problem and end up a nightmarish ministry full of one political/ethnic group who can abuse it to their hearts content.

    Violence will not be defeated through establishing a censorship.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  12. Jul 30, 2011 #11
    Voltaire once said “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” And I stand by it.

    I don't think banning songs is the right option here. You need to take out the root of the problem: bad education, poverty and unemployment. If these things aren't eliminated, then criminality and gangster attitude can be eliminated.

    Children should be raised with respect towards eachother, and that's the parents responsibility. The parents should discourage their children from listening to that music: either by prohibiting it or by have a conversation with the child and by asking if they actually understand what those lyrics say.

    That children like this atrocious music has a reason. And it is these reason that needs to be dealt with.
  13. Jul 30, 2011 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    And there are strong arguments for legalising these

    This is naive. Firstly people are not violent because they listen to rap, the issue is hugely multifactorial with music being a symptom rather than a cause. If banning something could breed out what it loosely represents in a few generations we would have established crime free utopias millennia ago.
  14. Jul 30, 2011 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, cocaine dictates what I'm trying to get across. You can't expect drug dealers to patrol themselves and decide that their drugs are too dangerous to sell. It's the same with these record companies that specialize in this sort of harmful entertainment. You can't expect them to basically cut off their main source of revenue.

    People who produce this kind of junk know what they're doing. It's not like most cases where companies sometimes make a bad product every once in a while and it's in their best interest to stop. For these companies, it's in their best interest to make more trash because for the most part, there is 0 pressure to stop them.
  15. Jul 30, 2011 #14
    Ultimately, I think it comes down to parents being involved in their kid's lives and having a moral society to start. While the government shouldn't (cannot?) legislate morality, the people can definately use social pressure to keep others moral.

    Also, there is an issue of - what is the source? Do we have violent music because there are gangs or do we have gangs because we have violent music? You talk about a source, but I don't think Eminem is it.
  16. Jul 30, 2011 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think this may be a somewhat naive viewpoint in-of-itself. It may not directly cause violence, but it does send an overwhelmingly powerful message that "This is OK. This is what you're suppose to do".

    While no one could argue crime and poverty would be gone if such violent music were to disappear overnight, but we would see huge positive change. If you're poor and live in a rough part of town, sure you may see guys beating up girls and drug dealers next door, but music is an immensely powerful and direct message. To me, because of the power that music has over many people, it would be the overwhelming reinforcement needed for an impressionable youth to go out and live that lifestyle.

    And let's not forget, the drug dealer next door may get taken away by the police every so often, but the people who create this violent music are making videos of them living in penthouse suites with gold everywhere. Which do you think makes a bigger impression on youth...
  17. Jul 30, 2011 #16
    Censorship is a broad term, it can govern any topic. I disagree with censoring corruption. But I do agree with censoring violent music.

    What political agenda would be pushed when violent music are prohibited from mass media? A strict code of conduct would be placed to prohibit misuse.

    You do make good points and I'm open to your view, but I'm under the impression that it can in theory work out. I am not a law major so I don't know how they spin words around to their liking. Whatever the case is, censorship of violent music is very important.

    I know there are strong arguments for legalizing these, don't know about gang and violence though.

    I know that A does not cause B. But A greatly influences the action of B. Violent music influences violent. And I don't blame rap, some rap does contain a degree of poetic beauty. I blame violent music under rap as an influence, not a direct and correlated cause.

    The difference between influence and cause is that influence works on a probabilistic frame while the word cause is an absolute frame: meaning that it works under 100% certainty.
    Yes, which is also why we can't expect the powerhouse tobacco company to cut off their main source of revenue as they kill X amount of people per year.

    And which is why a non zero pressure should be applied! hehe.

    I didn't see much violence that Eminem was promoting. On the other hand, songs like are much more geared toward violence. And I must admit, as a younger and more naive child I was influenced by these songs.

    I seem to be misunderstood. I am not speaking of music as a source of gangs. However, I am speaking of music as an influence to violence and gangs.

    Agreed. :approve:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  18. Jul 30, 2011 #17
    Maybe something supporting the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Télévision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines

    Radio Mille Collines was a Hutu radio active before and during the Rwanda genocide. It supported violence and compared the Tutsi's to cockroaches. The radio has been convicted for inciting genocide. And I believe this was a correct decision. We should censor such hateful radio's.

    There are songs out there which could be seen as inciting murder, rape and criminality. This of course isn't the same as the Rwanda genocide which killed over a million people, but I can see some parallels.

    I'm not expressing my opinion, but I'm just exploring the question a bit. As for my opinion: censorship is a repressive action and a repressive action alone won't solve the problem. You'll need socio-economic changes as well.
  19. Jul 30, 2011 #18
    politicians read books
    politicians start wars
    let's ban books that were read by politicians that started wars
  20. Jul 30, 2011 #19
    So you're ok with not censoring Mille Collines radio then??

    Free speech is important, but perhaps it has its limits...
  21. Jul 30, 2011 #20
    Good point.

    Repressive actions are needed to keep things from getting out of hands. Laws keep things from getting out of hand, they repress the population in a sense but for the benefit of the society, take the speed limit and motor vehicle penalties for example.

    In south america the population of mosquitos are repressed from getting out of hand.

    Repression is not an evil. Repression of good is evil. Repression of evil is good.

    With that said, repressing violent music is not a bad thing.

    I agree, but as ryan has mentioned it is a multi-factorial issue, as with any sociological problem.

    You only start making progress by taking an action on one of the issues.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook