Should songs be under government consent?

  • Thread starter Nano-Passion
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Government
In summary: It's a slippery slope and we don't want to go there.In summary, songs that promote violence and gang affiliation have a negative impact on society.
  • #106
Nano-Passion said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #108
Disconnected said:
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.
 
  • #109
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #110
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #111
ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #112
zomgwtf said:
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.
 
  • #113
zomgwtf said:
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.
 
  • #114
Disconnected said:
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.)
 
  • #115
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #116
Galteeth said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #117
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #118
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 [Broken]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. Should the government have control over what songs are released?</h2><p>No, the government should not have control over what songs are released. This would be a violation of freedom of expression and could lead to censorship of artistic expression.</p><h2>2. What are the potential benefits of having songs under government consent?</h2><p>There are no clear benefits to having songs under government consent. It could potentially limit the diversity and creativity of music and restrict the ability of artists to express themselves freely.</p><h2>3. Would government consent for songs be a form of censorship?</h2><p>Yes, government consent for songs would essentially be a form of censorship. It would give the government the power to decide what is acceptable and what is not, which goes against the principles of free speech.</p><h2>4. What are the potential consequences of having songs under government consent?</h2><p>The potential consequences of having songs under government consent include limiting artistic freedom, suppressing diverse voices and opinions, and hindering the growth and evolution of music as an art form.</p><h2>5. Is there any country that currently has songs under government consent?</h2><p>There are some countries that have censorship laws in place for certain types of music, but there is no country that currently has songs under government consent. Most countries have laws protecting freedom of expression and do not have government control over music.</p>

1. Should the government have control over what songs are released?

No, the government should not have control over what songs are released. This would be a violation of freedom of expression and could lead to censorship of artistic expression.

2. What are the potential benefits of having songs under government consent?

There are no clear benefits to having songs under government consent. It could potentially limit the diversity and creativity of music and restrict the ability of artists to express themselves freely.

3. Would government consent for songs be a form of censorship?

Yes, government consent for songs would essentially be a form of censorship. It would give the government the power to decide what is acceptable and what is not, which goes against the principles of free speech.

4. What are the potential consequences of having songs under government consent?

The potential consequences of having songs under government consent include limiting artistic freedom, suppressing diverse voices and opinions, and hindering the growth and evolution of music as an art form.

5. Is there any country that currently has songs under government consent?

There are some countries that have censorship laws in place for certain types of music, but there is no country that currently has songs under government consent. Most countries have laws protecting freedom of expression and do not have government control over music.

Similar threads

Replies
64
Views
15K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
999
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top