FREE ESSAY ON LIMITS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT

LIMITS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Limits to the First Amendment
The United States of America seems to be protected by a very important historical
document called the Constitution. Despite the fact that it was written and signed many
years ago, the American people and their leaders still have faith in the Constitution.
One of the major statements of the Constitution is the First Amendment, freedom of
speech. Although it is difficult to decide what is offensive and what is not, it is clear
to see that songs of rape, violence, bigotry, and songs containing four letter words are
completely unnecessary for susceptible minds to acknowledge. It is reasonable to say that
more people listen to music everyday and for that reason, music tends to be more
influential. The American people should consider the idea of censorship of music lyrics
that influence violence. We as Americans, have the voice to make artists think about the
harm that their lyrics can cause their listeners and possibly change their damaging
style. I think it would benefit the American people to research the effects of music
lyrics on people, debate the findings of the research, and discuss the consequences and
possible solutions for the problem.
Those who see no problem with the explicit and vulgar lyrics of today's music use The
United States Constitution to back up their rights. This very Constitution was adopted by
a convention of the States on September 17, 1787 (12) and has been a ruling thumb in the
actions of the United States Government. The current date is April 21, 1999-that's 212
years later! This is where the very popular freedom of speech amendment comes into play.
This Amendment states: 
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, (www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html ). 
These words by which we live by were actually made official on December 12, 1791. My
point is that these governing words have governed our lives for over two centuries, which
is a long time. The times aren't the same as they were when the Constitution and its
amendments were established, so we need to reconsider some of the ideas that are not
valid in today's society. Our greatest freedom that our founding fathers left us, freedom
of speech, needs to be reconsidered.
Many times the Constitutional right of freedom of speech is taken too lightly in that
people believe that they can say whatever they want to say when they want to say it. This
is a false belief. One would think it very wrong to scream fire in the middle of a
crowded building. The same goes for the lyrics of many songs these days. Music lyrics
have profound public consequences and, in many ways, the music industry is more
influential then anything... (Brownback 454) therefore, there needs to be censorship of
harmful lyrics so that listeners will not be influenced by the violence that many songs
are about. This does not mean that singers can not sing certain songs, it means that it
is not necessary for singers to glorify violent acts or incorporate meaningless four
letter words that may be repeated. It is perfectly legal to draw the line with music if
it is getting to a harmful state. Today, it seems like our music is in a harmful state.
Along with the argument for freedom of speech comes along the argument that people do not
listen to the words and so the lyrics of songs are harmless. The simple statement that
people do not pay attention to the lyrics of a song is not true. According to Albert
Hunt, music puts you in a mood. He writes, if Frank Senatra songs make people feel
romantic and John Phillips Sousa makes people feel patriotic, then the obscene violence
of ... Marilyn Manson or gangsta-rapper Snoop Doggy Dog might encourage impressionable
and troubled teenagers to feel perverted or violent, (A23). Hunt's article entitled
Politics & People: Teen Violence Spawned by Guns and Cultural Rot clearly depicts a rot
of culture in the United States by letting anything go because of the first Amendment. He
explains, with disappointment, that our country has fallen into a hole of violence with
movies, television, video games, and the music industry is a real villain for pandering
to the worst instincts of kids by glorifying sexual obscenities and bestial brutality,
(A23). Music puts us in a mood, so if we encourage more positive attitudes by music, then
we may be able to influence minds to think positively and not violently.
There are, though, many followers and protectors of this very important allowance. Jay
Rosenthal, author of an article entitled Music Industry should rally against NEA ruling
clearly defines his faith in the First Amendment when he turns down a decency proposition
for music. He urges that the arts community must be heard on this issue during nominating
processes, with a hope that a future court will be dominated by justices inclined to
protect the First Amendment, (4). His article is clearly depicts the suffering that the
art community will undergo with the decision to take into consideration general standards
of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public,(15).
Rosenthal is right in backing up artists for freedom of expression, but he seems to be
caught up in only that issue and unconcerned about a society that is turning violent
because of the strong vulgar lyrics of these artists' songs. He needs to reconsider his
thoughts and agree that today's music is in need of censorship.
To get an idea of the songs which make censorship of lyrics a necessity, we can take a
look at a few popular songs that glorify violence and degrade women. Some popular rap
songs have titles such as Smack My Bitch Up and Don't Trust a Bitch. One might ask
Rosenthal if he has seen these titles or heard these songs that ramble on with graphic
descriptions of murder, torture, and rape. Sam Brownback, author of an article called
Free Speech: Lyrics, Liberty, and License has a different idea about what should be done
with today's vulgar lyrics. Brownback will not interfere with the constitutional rights
of people, but instead wants to get these artists to think about their works and
influence them to change their lyrics on their own rather than censor them (456).
Changing the minds of songwriters and performers is a good idea to begin with, but not
the best idea. Brownback is trying to be the nice guy in this debate. He does not take
into consideration that trying to change the minds of these artists is not an easy task.
What would be easier is a tighter handle on what should be allowed and what should not be
allowed within the music industry. Censorship of indecent lyrics is in order.
Who decides what is descent and what is not? This is a very good question when
considering censorship. Eric Boehlert is appalled by the idea of censorship. His full
argument in an article Culture Skirmishes revolves around the main point that the law is
vague and that it is hard to get a consensus about what is offensive (Boehlert 29). The
answer to the decision of descency is not very clear, but that does not mean that
Americans should leave music alone. One solution to this problem is to take into
consideratioin a couple of questions with each song: 1) are these lyrics harmful to the
song's listeners by influencing violence? 2) are certain words, like bitch, necessary to
make a song successful? 3) do these lyrics reflect a violent culture over all? When
answers to these questions point to being harmful, unneccesary, and violent, then it is
obvious that censorship should come into play. Although some will still argue that
censorship is still unconstitutional, it remains a necessary component to the decline of
violent influence on music listeners. 
Texas has the right idea with a law that was passed in June 1997. This law prohibits
administrators of state-employee pension funds from investing any of their billions of
dollars in recond companies whose music 'explicitly describes, glamorizes or advocates'
violence, bestiality, gang activity, or the denigration of females, (Boehlert 29). This
law is a good beginning to clean music that does not turn our society toward violence.
There are other possible solutions though, like making a list of words that are indecent,
meaning offensive to community standards. This would illiminate harmful curse words that
are derogatory.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Amendments to the Constitution. On-line. Internet. Available: 
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html.
Boehlert, Eric. Culture Skirmishes. Rolling Stone 767 (1997): 29, 32
Brownback, Sam. Free Speech: Lyrics, Liberty and License. Vital Speeches of the 
Day (1998): 454-456.
Hunt, Albert R.. Politics & People: Teen Violence Spawned by Guns and Culture Rot. 
Wall Street Journal (1998): A23.
Petrozzello, Donna. MTV to Launch Anti-Violence Effort. Broadcasting & Cable 
128.43 (1998): 66.
Rosenthal, Jay. Music Industry Should Rally Against NEA Ruling. Billboard 110.32 
(1998): 4-15.