IndexJustifying Censorship with Political Morality and Decency as Justification of Censorship Conclusion Works CitedIn music, censorship can be defined as "the suppression or prohibition" of any part of music" considered obscene or politically unacceptable" (Oxford University Press, 2019). This includes editing musical and lyrical content, cover art and music videos to meet certain guidelines, laws and social expectations. Censorship can range from the intentional deletion of sensitive material by the artist to severe, legally enforced government restrictions on musical works or creators. Content often censored includes sexually explicit words or images; profane texts and discriminatory messages. The debate over whether or not censorship of popular music is justified is a common and long-standing conversation throughout history. The main justifications for censorship, particularly in music, are: Politics and Morality, with Economics also playing a role in decisions. Through these topics, this essay aims to discuss both the drawbacks and negative implications of censorship, including the prevention of free speech, as well as the possible positive effects it can have, for example, by not exposing young children to potentially harmful ideas. Censorship levels are highly dependent on geographic location, and as will be discussed in this essay, motivations for censoring musical content vary greatly, determined by where you are in the world. What is considered “censorable” in one country may be considered completely acceptable in another. For example, several Southeast Asian countries, particularly North Korea, have extremely high rates of censorship in music and most other forms of media, ranking last in the World Press Freedom Index (RSF, 2019 ). In comparison, Western parts of the world have much lower rates of censorship – for example, America ranks 45th out of 180 on the Freedom Index (RSF, 2019) – which translates into much higher levels of freedom and, therefore, lower levels of censorship. This essay will focus predominantly on cases in Russia, the United States, and North Korea. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayJustifying Censorship with Politics Arguably, the most common justification for censorship globally is politics. Many artists use music as a means to express their opinions on society and politics, while some use it as a form of activism. In particular, this is the extreme case of the Russian feminist female group “Pussy Riot”. They gained worldwide attention in February 2012 after performing an “obscenity-laced song called Punk Prayer” in Moscow's Cathedral of the Lord Savior, which “attacked the Orthodox Church's support for Vladimir Putin” (BBC News, 2013). The performance was hastily intercepted by church officials and a few weeks later, two out of three members of the band were arrested and charged with “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” (BBC News, 2013). They were later sentenced to 2 years in prison for their actions. News of their imprisonment sparked an international outcry, with much of the support coming specifically from other highly successful musicians, with everyone from Adele to Sir Paul McCartney publicly calling for their release. In an interview with Amnesty's arts communications manager – Lucy Macnamara, she described how a number of musicians had told her that “if you can't sing a protest song without the fear of being arrested, then there's Andsomething seriously wrong” (Amnesty. org, 2013). This statement raises the question of where to draw the line between “protest” and “hooliganism”. Protest means "to demonstrate publicly that you are against something" (Collins Dictionary, 2019), while hooliganism can be defined as the "illegal behavior" of "tough, aggressive or violent young people". Pussy Riot purposely used a provocative performance and controversial to raise awareness of issues they felt strongly about and, although they were passionate and persistent, they did not display any violent behavior reminiscent of so-called "hooligans". On the one hand, it is understandable why their protest performance was considered disrespectful by some, as it took place in a church, an important and sacred place of worship for many people. This could be interpreted as an attack on their religion but instead it was intended as a demonstration against the political ideas of the church. Pussy Riot's acts on this day were not sufficient justification for the lengthy prison term to which they were sentenced. They didn't deserve to be censored so heavily when all they did was show their freedom of expression through a musical performance. To continue, the freedom of expression shown by Pussy Riot is a freedom granted to them by law. Russia is one of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (States and Europe, 2018) and therefore must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (henceforth referred to as the ECHR). Article 10 of the ECHR is dedicated to “Freedom of expression” and states that everyone has the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference from public authority and without regard to frontiers” (ECHR, 1950). Therefore, it was Pussy Riot's legal right to express and present their ideas in the way they did. By censoring this type of political art and music, people may become angry, which, in turn, may lead them to seek other, more provocative forms of activism to make their voices heard. This could include more violent protests which would become a highly negative impact of censorship. On the other hand, by censoring Pussy Riot, the government has inadvertently helped raise the issue of unjustified censorship of music globally, which is the main topic of Pussy Riot's protest. An even more extreme example is North Korea, a country controlled by a rigid totalitarian regime. The North Korean government uses its political power to ban almost all consumption of any form of media that was not created in its country. This includes preventing citizens from listening to "Western" music that is not legally approved by the government. If a citizen chooses to listen to a song not approved by the government, it is considered a punishable crime. They do this as a way to control their country and believe this prevents them from forming Westernized views on politics. By suppressing the nation to this extent, society is much less likely to react. M In modern America, the first official documentation of music censorship was based on political justification and occurred after the Civil War, when "pro-Southern songs" were banned during the country's reconstruction because the U.S. government thought these songs they would have aroused feelings. Understandably, they were trying to prevent the general public from further possible problems. However, like the ECHR, America has a similar free speech law that has been part of the US Constitution since 1791: the 1st Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitutional Law “guarantees the freedoms of religion, ofexpression, assembly, and the right to petition” (LII/Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Technically, "pro-South songs should not have been banned as it is the right and freedom of speech of artists to communicate their thoughts through their songs without being restricted by the government." Music is a form of expression and therefore should not be censored in any way unless the subjects are in line with obscenity laws. Speech that falls under the category of “obscenity” is not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, obscenity laws “deals with prohibiting obscene, obscene, or disgusting words or images” (LII/Legal Information Institute, 2017). When it comes to artistic expressions containing so-called “indecent materials,” restrictions may apply “as to time, place, and manner but are nevertheless protected by the First Amendment” (LII/Legal Information Institute, 2017). This leads to the second justification for censorship that this essay discusses: morality and decency. Morality and decency as a justification for censorship The argument in favor of censorship on "moral grounds" is usually aimed at protecting children and adolescents from coming into contact with profanity and explicit content that is not considered beneficial to them at a time so crucial. period of time in their development. While there are no specific age limits for music, the concept and justification are similar to age limits applied to films. This type of censorship is also used to prevent the general public, regardless of age, from being exposed to harmful or disturbing content. Furthermore, censoring sensitive content in music can make it more marketable and therefore profitable, making economic gain another incentive for moral censorship. In contemporary history, one of the most notable instances in which music censorship became a nationwide topic was when Elvis Presley appeared on the Ed Sullivan show in 1958 and was filmed from the waist up. This was done because, at the time, Presley's hip movements and dance moves were considered overly suggestive and therefore inappropriate for a nationwide broadcast. In a way you can understand why they would feel the need to censor this performance; it occurred at a time when sexual liberalism was not yet a widely accepted idea and postwar America was still relatively sexually conservative (Meyerowitz, 2019). However, in today's social climate, Presley's movements would be completely acceptable and hardly considered overly sexual. To take a more recent example, Blud Line's music video is a famous case of censorship, invoked by the public. In more recent years, popular music topics have become progressively more explicit and less child-friendly. Topics involving substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and violence are among those that are becoming increasingly common lyrical topics. Several genres including rap, rock and heavy metal are the most frequent culprits of this type of explicit content. Countless studies have even shown that exposure to musical content with mature themes can in fact have a negative influence on the behaviors of young people, with those who listen to heavy metal and rap having a greater tendency to take part in reckless behaviour. A survey of a group of public school mothers was conducted in 1999 (with a sample size of 345). The results of this survey revealed that “47% of mothers believe that violent messages in rap contribute to school violence” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2009). In another study conductedby psychologists Peter Fischer and Tobias Greitemeyer, it emerged that adolescent boys "who listened to misogynistic lyrics showed more aggressive responses towards women, as well as a more negative perception of them". It could be argued that censoring music to protect children and teenagers is unnecessary, and by protecting them from these topics while they are young, we allow them to grow up unprepared for the harsh realities of the real world. However, the evidence and countless studies demonstrating the effects that uncensored music can have on young people should be enough to justify censoring certain pieces of music. Most popular music songs these days are censored when it comes to radio play, with the words "bleeped" or muted from the song or some lyrics changed entirely to create an alternative, "clean" version. "Radio Edit" is also now a common sign that many songs need to be edited to be featured on national radio stations. A notable example of a popular song censored to appeal to a wider audience is the song "Forget You" released in 2010 by Cee-lo Green, also known as "Fuck You" for the original uncensored version. Although most of the lyrics are clean, the repeated phrase of "Fuck You" which appears in all the choruses of the original song, was simply changed to "Forget You" and the word "shit" altered simply to "shhh" to create a radio. friendly and clean version. These small adjustments made the song suitable to be played by both children and adults. It could be argued that the censored version of this song is even more successful than the original "explicit" version as it was played much more frequently on radio stations around the world. If a clean version had not been created, the song perhaps would not have achieved such great success, selling over 6 million copies in the United States alone by 2013. This was a circumstance where pop music censorship had an impact positive and was well justified. With the advent of streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music and Youtube, it's quickly becoming much more difficult for parents to control what their children listen to and watch. A survey conducted by the GSMA in 2014 on the use of mobile phones by children in 8 different countries (Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom and Japan), concluded that “On average 69% of children interviewed in all eight countries” used a mobile phone. These children ranged in age from 9 to 16 years old. Songs and albums may be marked with "Parental Advisory", a warning label placed on songs potentially unsuitable for younger audiences. While this may prevent parents from purchasing physical albums, it is much more difficult to prevent their children from accessing and listening to this content online, especially when children have additional access to headphones so their parents can't even hear what they are consuming . Some would use this to support the argument that there is no point in censoring content when children will find a way to listen to it anyway, however, I would argue that streaming companies should implement stricter enforcement to make censorship more difficult. children to encounter explicit content. While this would require a lot of work and would never completely solve the problem, music should be approached in the same way as films and some music videos. Companies like Spotify and Apple Music should follow in the footsteps of YouTube and Netflix by not allowing you to listen to certain songs if you are under a certain age. Conclusion Ultimately, there are many different.