Should songs be under government consent?

[Ken Natton]

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you zoobyshoe, but I can see a distinction. The problem of people being badly influenced by cigarette advertising was widespread, and thus the ban on cigarette advertising has had a significant effect at a demographic level. The problem of music being used to promote violence is much less widespread and thus is more realistic to deal with at the level of the individuals responsible for attempting to influence others and the individuals actually incited to real acts of violence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you zoobyshoe, but I can see a distinction. The problem of people being badly influenced by cigarette advertising was widespread, and thus the ban on cigarette advertising has had a significant effect at a demographic level. The problem of music being used to promote violence is much less widespread and thus is more realistic to deal with at the level of the individuals responsible for attempting to influence others and the individuals actually incited to real acts of violence.

I think that's a valid distinction.

The distinction I was actually hoping would be raised is that violent music is tied up with violent people and any sudden, obvious crack down is going to be fought. Smokers are a much easier target, and never put up much of a fight. The campaign against smoking has also been applied very incrementally over the years, unlike the sudden shock of prohibition. Cracking down too hard on music with a violent message would probably just elicit a troublesome reaction.

 

[Disconnected]

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

I think it has to do with intent. Cigarette ads intend to promote smoking, it's their main aim. Music with a violent message aims to sell CDs. It does not intend to promote violence, that is not it's purpose, it is a side effect.

Similar to attempted murder and reckless endangerment, the intent of an action is a major factor in the US legal system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it has to do with intent. Cigarette ads intend to promote smoking, it's their main aim. Music with a violent message aims to sell CDs. It does not intend to promote violence, that is not it's purpose, it is a side effect.

Similar to attempted murder and reckless endangerment, the intent of an action is a major factor in the US legal system.

Another good point. The intent of cigarette ads was never disputed, and they could be condemned based on that intent alone.

But then, there's the Huckleberry Finn problem. It's been banned from a lot of libraries because it's full of the "N' word. I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate Mark Twain never intended to promulgate the use of that word. He was pro-black, anti-slavery. He used it only because it was used by the society he depicted: the south of his childhood. It seems whatever reason you give for banning that book could be used to ban the music in question.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But then, there's the Huckleberry Finn problem. It's been banned from a lot of libraries because it's full of the "N' word. I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate Mark Twain never intended to promulgate the use of that word. He was pro-black, anti-slavery. He used only because it was used by the society he depicted: the south of his childhood. It seems whatever reason you give for banning that book could be used to ban the music in question.

I whole heartedly disagree with banning/censoring books too. The latest editions of Sherlock Holmes apparently have all the N words removed which is just ridiculous. By reading these books people can learn about different times, different cultures that ultimately gave rise to ours. They are part of our history! The Colosseum was used for gruesome executions but we haven't ripped it down and built a crappy sports stadium for the same reason we shouldn't re-write books.

 

[JDStupi]

Rather than trying to argue that "X is bad for the children so we should ban them" and then get defensive when other people make analogies to other potentially negatively influential media, you should take the fact that the lines are not clear and that arguments can be made for a number of things as being indicative of the wrong choice of action.

I agree with others who say that you need to go out and live in the real world. Are there people who listen to ganster rap and kill? Sure. Are there people who have a propensity towards violent behavior who listen to violent music? Sure. Are there also people who have a propensity towards sadness who listen to depressing music? Yes. People will listen to music that they feel closer to.

Do you honestly believe somebody was sitting around and then went and listened to a ganster rap song and said "Oh s**t, look at that! It turns out I can kill people, all this time I thought it was wrong or that I would get in trouble, but hey I'm going killing now!"

If somebody was that unstable that a song pushed them over the edge to go kill people, I would have to take a guess and say that some other stimulus probably would have had the same reaction.

The same argument can be made for violence in movies. If anything movies are more realistic and have more sensory modalities contributing to a greater overall experience.

Music, Movies, Comedy and a whole lot more fall suspect to "negative influence"

I don't like the childish mentality of "I am a naive child who thinks x is bad and not everyone agrees with me so I'm telling daddy (The Government) and he'll agree with me"

The main problem is that you should realize that getting the government to be the ultimate arbiter for such slippery issues is dangerous.

The problem could be that people who take advantage of that lifestyle accept a slightly conventional definition of success (money) but reject the socially accepted means of obtaining what they want.

Ban music and watch nothing happen. Nothing but angry people who rebel against a greater influence of stupid naive white prudes in their life.

 

[zomgwtf]

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

Like I said many times zooby, you show me a song which actively promotes other people to be violent then we can discuss that. No one has provided any example in this thread of such a thing being actively promoted in music. They talk about what real things that happen, things they think, things they do, maybe it sounds cool maybe not but I have yet to see a song in mainstream music or in this thread that says 'go out and kill this man.'

That IS illegal by the way and songs with those messages DO face the legal consequences.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Like I said many times zooby, you show me a song which actively promotes other people to be violent then we can discuss that. No one has provided any example in this thread of such a thing being actively promoted in music. They talk about what real things that happen, things they think, things they do, maybe it sounds cool maybe not but I have yet to see a song in mainstream music or in this thread that says 'go out and kill this man.'

That IS illegal by the way and songs with those messages DO face the legal consequences.

What's your reaction to the Hucklberry Finn ban? Show me one place where Mark Twain actually said "Black should be called N*****." He never endorsed it, but the book is banned in places based on the fact he depicted it being done by a whole society.

 

[Galteeth]

Nano, you still haven't responded to my question. How do you justify advocating violence (a government ban on music) when you say advocating violence should be banned? Would music that advocated the government killing people be alright?

 

[zomgwtf]

What's your reaction to the Hucklberry Finn ban? Show me one place where Mark Twain actually said "Black should be called N*****." He never endorsed it, but the book is banned in places based on the fact he depicted it being done by a whole society.

First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.

Second I don't agree with such a change of language in the book but if individual publishers want to republish the material (I think it's old enough to be republish this way no?) then they are free to do that. So long as it's made known that it's not an original copy and I my access to an original copy isn't stopped.

Third... it doesn't really apply to me anyways. I live in Canada. Last time I read Huckleberry Finn at the library in my school it had the word cool person. So did to kill a mockingbird... so did a bunch of other novels. Novels get challenged here all the time but normally the recommendation to the school boards is to keep the novel (actually of the times I've heard of these bans that's been the only recommendation...) and the school board complies.

One time in grade 10 English class while we were reading To Kill a Mockingbird I had to read the first part in the book that says 'cool person' I felt kinda weird saying it outloud in class so I said 'the big tall black person'. My teacher got so mad at me for changing the word. hahahaha

 

[Galteeth]

First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.

Second I don't agree with such a change of language in the book but if individual publishers want to republish the material (I think it's old enough to be republish this way no?) then they are free to do that. So long as it's made known that it's not an original copy and I my access to an original copy isn't stopped.

Third... it doesn't really apply to me anyways. I live in Canada. Last time I read Huckleberry Finn at the library in my school it had the word cool person. So did to kill a mockingbird... so did a bunch of other novels. Novels get challenged here all the time but normally the recommendation to the school boards is to keep the novel (actually of the times I've heard of these bans that's been the only recommendation...) and the school board complies.

One time in grade 10 English class while we were reading To Kill a Mockingbird I had to read the first part in the book that says 'cool person' I felt kinda weird saying it outloud in class so I said 'the big tall black person'. My teacher got so mad at me for changing the word. hahahaha

Modern book "bans" in america usually refer to a school removing a book from the curriculum and taking it out of their school library based on some Christian lunatic complaining. The children are of course, still free to read the book on their own time.

Here's a story about a recent "ban" of kurt vonegut's slaughterhouse five (by the way, it describes a very violent thing that happened in Dresden, maybe some people here approve?):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/29/national/main20085453.shtml

 

[zoobyshoe]

First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.

Second I don't agree with such a change of language in the book but if individual publishers want to republish the material (I think it's old enough to be republish this way no?) then they are free to do that. So long as it's made known that it's not an original copy and I my access to an original copy isn't stopped.

Third... it doesn't really apply to me anyways. I live in Canada. Last time I read Huckleberry Finn at the library in my school it had the word cool person. So did to kill a mockingbird... so did a bunch of other novels. Novels get challenged here all the time but normally the recommendation to the school boards is to keep the novel (actually of the times I've heard of these bans that's been the only recommendation...) and the school board complies.

One time in grade 10 English class while we were reading To Kill a Mockingbird I had to read the first part in the book that says 'cool person' I felt kinda weird saying it outloud in class so I said 'the big tall black person'. My teacher got so mad at me for changing the word. hahahaha

It's banned by many Public Schools in the US, which are part of the local department of education, so, it's essentially a government ban.

I think it's interesting that when it came down to it, you, personally, censored the word.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Modern book "bans" in america usually refer to a school removing a book from the curriculum and taking it out of their school library based on some Christian lunatic complaining. The children are of course, still free to read the book on their own time.

Here's a story about a recent "ban" of kurt vonegut's slaughterhouse five (by the way, it describes a very violent thing that happened in Dresden, maybe some people here approve?):

That ban is not a good example of what you are talking about. The original complaint was indeed from a Christian. However, 3 books were mentioned in the complaint and only two were banned. According to the school, they were banned based on age-appropriateness, not on moral issues. Even with the ban, the books are allowed for extra class material if parent approve.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Nano, you still haven't responded to my question. How do you justify advocating violence (a government ban on music) when you say advocating violence should be banned? Would music that advocated the government killing people be alright?

I didn't support advocating violence? I looked down upon things that advocated violence, I think you meant to say something else. Anyhow I've changed my viewpoint toward banning songs.

To the second question, no.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's banned by many Public Schools in the US, which are part of the local department of education, so, it's essentially a government ban.

Fair enough.

I feel for schools though it's a different barrel of fish (is that the saying?). On the one hand I see what you're saying. But on the other I also see the schools point of view. I mean it really comes down to if the parents think it's appropriate for their child and if it's reasonable. We wouldn't say the school blocking say pornography on school computers is govn't endorsed censorship would we? The question for school though is where the line is drawn and what age do we consider there to 'be no line'. (for instance in grade 12 English my teacher, who was also our homeroom teacher, showed us a video which amounted to pornography. I mean you saw everything... don't want to get too graphic though. This might be seen as unacceptable to some parents but is it reasonable for the school to enforce it now at that age? I don't think so but that's open to debate of course)

I think it's interesting that when it came down to it, you, personally, censored the word.

Yeah. It was sort of an awkward situation, I knew the class was laughing (you could hear some sniggering going on before hand cause people read ahead) and I felt pretty awkward and on the spot having to say it to the entire class sort of in a 'speech'. I mean with my friends and stuff I would say it sometimes but this instance it was just different. Perhaps it had to do with context of the word too... it was used pretty derogatorily in the book and I had never used it in such a way before.

 

[Galteeth]

I didn't support advocating violence? I looked down upon things that advocated violence, I think you meant to say something else. Anyhow I've changed my viewpoint toward banning songs.

To the second question, no.

Arguing for government censorship is arguing for violence, i.e. if produce music we find to be in support of violence, you will be punished (through violence.)

It's good that you are open minded enough to reconsider an opinion. Mane people these days cannot do that, and even if their opinion changes, won't admit to it.

 

[Disconnected]

Arguing for government censorship is arguing for violence, i.e. if produce music we find to be in support of violence, you will be punished (through violence.)

Not neccasarily. In fact almost certainly not. Is charging a fine or sentencing someone to jail time violence? I don't think anyone here was advocating the use of a cat-o-nine-tails here.

 

[Galteeth]

Not neccasarily. In fact almost certainly not. Is charging a fine or sentencing someone to jail time violence? I don't think anyone here was advocating the use of a cat-o-nine-tails here.

Yes, because those thrings are backed by violent threats (If I say give me your money or else, that is a violent threat). Enough about this though, it will get off topic. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy.

 

[Disconnected]

Yes, because those thrings are backed by violent threats (If I say give me your money or else, that is a violent threat). Enough about this though, it will get off topic. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy.

I see your point.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, because those thrings are backed by violent threats (If I say give me your money or else, that is a violent threat). Enough about this though, it will get off topic. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy.

If that's your definition of violence then you need to make a clear distinction between law enforcement and crime because whilst both may employ physical force they are radically different.

 

[zomgwtf]

If that's your definition of violence then you need to make a clear distinction between law enforcement and crime because whilst both may employ physical force they are radically different.

define: violent
1. Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something: "a violent confrontation with riot police".

Police do utilize violence at times when necessary. You wouldn't say a police officer putting you on the hood and in a 'cop hold' (the one with your arm behind your back and they press up towards your head with your arm bending your elbow... excruciatingly painful and something which cops do frequently.) or when they press their knee on your head pressing it into the asphalt to hold you still or when they start punching you... etc. etc.. Yes, they are trained to know when to use what level of violence but they do use violence none-the-less.

I disagree with what galteeth said though, still... If I say "Give me my money or I will phone the police" this is not a violent threat. If the law states "If you break this law you will go to jail for 5 months" I don't think that's a violent threat. If it says "if you break this law you will be fined $5000" it's not a violent threat either... I can't see how making laws is using/threatening violence at all. I'm not afraid to break the law because the cops will kick my ***. I'm afraid to break the law cause I'm poor and can't afford to pay the fines.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

define: violent
1. Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something: "a violent confrontation with riot police".

Police do utilize violence at times when necessary. You wouldn't say a police officer putting you on the hood and in a 'cop hold' (the one with your arm behind your back and they press up towards your head with your arm bending your elbow... excruciatingly painful and something which cops do frequently.) or when they press their knee on your head pressing it into the asphalt to hold you still or when they start punching you... etc. etc.. Yes, they are trained to know when to use what level of violence but they do use violence none-the-less.

I don't disagree with the definition necessarily but with it's practical use. Whilst violence can simply mean using physical force its practically used (especially in the context of this discussion) to refer to a negative/criminal activity. I don't think Galteeth is making a necessary distinction between what the OP was referring to and what (s)he is using the term to mean. The argument of "isn't it hypocritical to use violence against violence" seems nonsense to me if your definition of violence for the purpose of the discussion is force.

 

[Disconnected]

If the law states "If you break this law you will go to jail for 5 months" I don't think that's a violent threat.

I think he was referring to what would happen if you refused to go to jail. At the very bottom, below fines, jail time, and prison sentences there is that fact that the government is stronger then you are. This is why you go to jail - if you don't then you will be physically forced to.

 

[Galteeth]

I think he was referring to what would happen if you refused to go to jail. At the very bottom, below fines, jail time, and prison sentences there is that fact that the government is stronger then you are. This is why you go to jail - if you don't then you will be physically forced to.

Yes. The distinction between who is doing the threatening always seemed like an arbitrary distinction. Literally, it's still the use of violent threats. I understand this is a minority view point (I don't get why.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes. The distinction between who is doing the threatening always seemed like an arbitrary distinction. Literally, it's still the use of violent threats. I understand this is a minority view point (I don't get why.)

Because the opposition isn't to violence it's to a specific usage of violence.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Yes. The distinction between who is doing the threatening always seemed like an arbitrary distinction. Literally, it's still the use of violent threats. I understand this is a minority view point (I don't get why.)

Because the government is here to keep society running. If you did something wrong it means you might be hurting society. Some of the government threats is here to keep us safe, therefore I find it justified and "good".

If there weren't threats against people who commit acts of crime or murder then society would have a harder time sustaining itself.

 

[Nano-Passion]

It's good that you are open minded enough to reconsider an opinion. Mane people these days cannot do that, and even if their opinion changes, won't admit to it.

I am aware of just how complex societal matters can be and don't assume expertise. Personally, I consider myself a very open minded person. Throughout arguments I always keep note of the opposition.

Even if you assume a vast knowledge of societal patterns and tendencies your best guess is based on probability and there is no absolute certainty. So while I may have some merit in what I have said, their probability in predicting societal tendencies probably overpowers my optimistic view 50 to 1. Or more. Things are much easier said than done and that is besides the moral issue of limiting freedom and imposing your biased view.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I see that you have apparently changed your mind about the censorship. I do find it somewhat disconcerting though that you seem to apply your distaste most specifically to rap music so I thought I might bring this up.

As some others have noted there are indeed many types of music that "promote" violence. To go directly to the issues with which you are concerned there are biker gangs(as Zomgwtf pointed out), skinheads, latino gangs, and asian gangs. The biker subculture is mostly "influenced" by hard rock and "outlaw country" in which you can most certainly find references to violence and misogyny and sometimes even racism. As the name implies "outlaw country" tends to cater to and romanticize the "outlaw" or biker subculture. Skinheads have "oi" and hardcore subgenres of punk, some of which caters to them. Hardcore is violent by the very sound of it let alone the lyrics (which I have never been able to understand anyway). "Oi" is mostly up beat music but tends to have a strong bent towards such "manly" pass times as drinking and fighting. Both of these may contain racism if they are specifically targeting skinheads. Latino gangs have some "alternative" music (generally rock music with rap elements) that caters to them and has similar themes to the rap music you dislike. Latino gangs are also sometimes "influenced" by rock-a-billy/greaser subculture which often incorporates violence. Asian "gangstas" as far as I can tell mostly listen to techno with some R&B and rap thrown in there. I'm pretty sure that Notorious MSG is just kitch. No direct musical "influence" there that I am aware of, someone can correct me if they know better. I have been told that there are "chigger" gangs in China which are influenced a lot by rap.

At any rate, these "violent subcultures" are all influenced by various types of music and there may be more of them than you are aware. Also note that there are "Gangsta" rappers who speak out against gangs and do so through their music possibly using words and imagery that may easily look over violent from an "outside" perspective. There are plenty of bikers who are good people and do work with charities and such. There are SHARPs (Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice) and it may be well to note that the original skinhead movement was not racist. There are latino alternative and punk musicians who preach rising up out of oppression and fighting injustice (often with violent lyrics, see: Rage Against the Machine). Among latino, black, and asian youth there are what are commonly called "crews" which may look like gangs (and its sometimes used as a synonym for gang) but are basically just young people grouping together to watch each others backs. They may be more or less inclined to violence and some of the larger and more organized ones may try to keep gangs out of their neighbourhoods and even do charity work. "Tong" might be a close equivalent for asians (chinese specifically) but generally refers to a large organization and they have often been connected to crime.Oh...
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=32&articleid=63&sectionid=317
Although there may be a slight bias there this article describes how the various media industries self regulate, including the music industry. The FCC also has pretty strong control over any regular broadcast media so you are unlikely to be hearing any violent gang oriented music on the radio or on TV unless it is late at night. Many companies also want to be considered "family friendly" and do not want to be associated with such imagery so the need for ad revenue often puts pressure on broadcastors to be careful what they put on the air. So to some degree these sorts of "influences" are already kept from children.