Free expression by artists has experienced much censorship through history. Ancient societies used censorship as an instrument for regulation of political and moral life depending on the climate of the day. This practice has not been limited to ancient governments but present day democratic governments also employ censorship. Whenever art challenges beliefs that are held on to strongly by society, tension increases and pressure for censorship increases.
Art has both negative and positive value to society. Proponents of censorship argue that when art causes offence to the beliefs of society censorships should be allowed in order to maintain certain political, moral or religious values. Posner and Chiang argue that a balance should be struck, that it should not be said that art should never be censored because sometimes works of art can cause offence but on the other hand censorship should be limited to enhance artistic value and more importantly freedom of expression (Chiang and Posner, 2006, Pp 309-335).
The argument for censorship is however difficult to make especially in today’s society where the tastes of society are constantly changing and very diverse. The danger of infringing on the rights of freedom of expression is very present. The history of censorship is tainted with violations of human rights. When censorship occurs in situations of national crisis often, it facilitates the perpetuation of political evils and sometimes leads to victimization of the artist.
This is in true in the case of John Lennon whose political lyrics in the song Imagine caused President Nixon and the FBI to attempt to have him deported (Atkins, 2007). Following the September 11 attacks, Clear Channel radio issued a list of songs that would not be played because they head antiwar content or action stuff. Most citizens view this as a violation of fundamental civil liberties (Atkins, 2007). Comments by one of Dixie Chicks members concerning the war on Iraq led to a ban on their songs by radio stations following requests by enraged American citizens. This however, is not viewed as violation of the freedom of speech rights by Gabriel Rossman, assistant professor of sociology.
Experts argue that since no laws were broken, there was no violation of First Amendment rights. The personal boycotts by fans are seen by many as a prerogative of the fans (Glass, 2006). The personal boycotts however led to a censorship campaign, and though the protests were from the grassroots the backlash by conservatives in an indication of intolerance of free speech.
Doris Graber states that censorship during periods of national crisis may be necessary to reduce the security risk for civilians and military personnel (Graber 2003 Pp 539-557). Some lyrics found in artists work may be considered inflammatory leading to the situation becoming worse in a national crisis.
Public figures generally influence what ideas are perceived as important by the public. They also influence the action that will be taken depending on what they say. In the past celebrities influenced people a lot and some of them for example John Lennon used his position as a rock star as leverage by which to advance social issues. His vocal opposition of the Vietnam War however led to government retaliation in form of censorship. Fear of censorship has led many artists not to take a stand in political issues or to be politically correct. This means that their role as charge agents is fast becoming eroded. Many argue that they do not need a celebrity to tell them what to think.
Most artistes today are not very vocal about political issues in a national crisis because they do not want to risk losing their fan base due to their comments. In addition, most American citizens consider the artists not to be very intelligent and as such do not think that their comments in a national crisis would cause much effect. Following the fallout of the Dixie chicks there was much discussion over censorship and freedom of speech. It should be noted however, that the Dixie chicks decided to tone down on their political statements because of the backlash of their fans and not because they had experienced censorship.
Censorship is an act of the government and the government had no hand in the ban of Dixie Chicks songs, rather it was the fans boycotts that led to a ban on airplay. The fact that most radio stations are owned by one corporation still does not mean that the Dixie Chick’s right to make political statements was suppressed. The corporation was only trying to meet the demands of its market. Kanye West was very vocal about the slow response of the government during the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Spike Lee also made a documentary that was critical of the government response. This however, did not meet any government retaliation, showing that the government’s tendency to censor artists during national crises is decreasing.
In a situation of national crisis, it is necessary that an evaluation of the balance between freedom and national security be sought. That is not to say that censorship be allowed but artists as they exercise their freedom of speech rights need to be sensitive to issues that come with a national crisis. For instance, following the September, 11 attacks many artists responded by creating their songs and artwork, Dave Matthews changed plans to release a single entitled ‘when the world ends’, the Cranberries changes their video for ‘Analyze’ which had many airplanes and skyscrapers while Dream Theatre removed burning New York buildings from their live album (Nuzum, 2002).
Some artists like the group Rage Against machine however, received demands from their record company to rework their artwork for the album that showed the group standing in front of an exploding world trade centre. This work had been made eighteen months before the attack on the Twin Centre and therefore had no connections to the attack. The move to redo the artwork in my opinion was prudent since in the context of the situation release of the intended album would only have been in bad taste and fostered an eerie feeling (Nuzum, 2002)
Censorship is not a viable option in managing a national crisis in present-day America. This is because extreme ideas that can be conveyed through music and artwork will usually be protested by the public itself. Most artists want to make money and a shift in their fan base due to political activism does not favour this. In any case, most recording companies will advise artistes to tone down inflammatory comments. The problem with enacting a law that censures artists’ freedom of expression is that such censorship is likely to spread to other media, meaning then that the government can misinform or fail to inform the public on its activities.
In addition it is difficult to decide who determines what is objective in calling for censorship, often right wing ideologies may be considered as extreme by left wing ideologists. Consequently, if a member of either persuasion is to decide ion censorship then another’s freedom will be suppressed. In a country, where democracy is the proposed form of government, censorship has no place.
Works Cited
Atkins Robert, 2007, A brief and idiosyncratic history of censorship. Web.
Chiang Tuna and Posner Richard, 2006, Censorship versus Freedom of Expression in the Arts, Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Elsevier Publishing, ISBN0-444-508708.
Glass Diane, 2006 Dixie Chicks Censorship or the cost of free speech, The Seattle Times.
Graber Doris, 2003, Styles of Image Management During Crises: Justifying Press Censorship, Discourse and Society, vol14, no5 pp. 530-557.
Nuzum Eric, 2002, America’s Implicit Music Censorship. Web.