Ian's Ch. 4 Essay Rough
Ian Parker
Bleck
English 101
June 1, 2009
F*** Tha PMRC
In 1988, NWA released their album ‘Straight Outta Compton’ which featured songs like “Fuck Tha Police” and “Straight Outta Compton.” Songs like these expressed their feelings towards the life they knew. Just 3 years earlier, al Gore’s wife, Tipper Gore, and her group, The Parents Music Resource Center, took a bill to court to get the parental advisory sticker put on the sleeves of records. Stopping these actions of senators’ wives and people alike is a crucial event that should have happened. Censoring what these artists have to say is like trying to justify burning the constitution or bill of rights. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill asked, “How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?” (Mill 85) This question applies to all aspects of human involvement with each other. In censoring our music and hushing the people who valiantly create this music, we halt any concept of further understanding each other’s ways of life.
I first pose the question of why our music is being censored. It may be that some artists write lyrics about killing someone or having sex, but what good movie doesn’t also talk about those subjects? I think that if little Bobby’s ears have been molested by the radio, his parents should be better parents. In being a parent of a child, it is their responsibility to keep any harm away from the child they wanted to have but to shelter that child from anything such as music, is just keeping a child closeted from what society will throw at it once it reaches the real world. Money shouldn’t be wasted on groups like the PMRC, started by Tipper Gore in the 80’s to get stickers on Judas Priest albums. Politicians wives have no right telling others that music should be censored because some kid was high and killed himself listening to Judas Priest. An African musician named Johnny Clegg once said that “Censorship is based on fear” (About).Dealing with music, that fear is truth. It’s the truth of what happens out in the world everyday and to shelter their children at this point in their lives, to keep them sheltered from cultures unknown to them, is extremely unfortunate for their growth to becoming an adult. Only when these kids are sheltered from this at an early age do they become bigots and racists and sexists. Not knowing what these artists are truly saying keeps them from mental stability.
Most lyrics in the hip-hop and rap communities are inspired by the literal neighborhoods they lived in. Most musicians or artists speak of their lives in metaphors or sing about current problems in the world. To most people, the lyrics they hear are taken in the wrong context of what the artist might want them to hear. When NWA wrote “Fuck Tha Police” (this is years before Rodney King), they lived in a community where the police would beat them up and arrest them for being black. I would hope that hearing these people rap about coming from the streets and being oppressed by the police for the community they live in and the way they dress, one could at least sympathize for their beatings and scrutiny. Mothers and fathers around the world hear all this music and immediately process it as negative. Though it is negative, its negative in a good sense of the word. Being that close-mind and being close-minded in front of your children is nothing but wrong and further redeeming the fact that society is a hole.
Parents and children are skeptical to meanings of lyrics and rightly so. Hearing artists speak what they think is a shock. Kurt Cobain sing “Rape me/Rape me my friend” on the radio with your children in the backseat would give them the wrong impression of the word. Keeping children away from harm, or visions or sound that may cause mental harm, is each parents main goal in raising their children. As a person, I wouldn’t want my child going around saying George Carlin’s seven dirty words to the cash register at the local grocery store. It would cause much embarrassment to me and the people around me. All parents want their kids to be respectful and courteous when out in public. So when they are in public, they don’t want the kids yelling Public Enemy lyrics at strangers. It is a real concern that mom and dad have, that their child or many children be good people and not use bad language to express themselves openly.
The problem with every parents worries is this. If they were good parents, they would teach their kids when and where it’s okay to use such language. If their kid was whining because they wanted the hottest rap album and parents succumbed and the kids started acting atrocious, it’s the parents fault for buying the album. They should have no complaints about the child’s behavior because they shelled out the $13.99 to get the child the music. Strictly the get the kid to shut up, even though the album has a parental advisory sticker on the album cover, glued to the bottom right corner. it’s the parents failure to hold firm ground on the matter that child acts up afterwards.
Censoring our music is a glimpse of the fear average, sheltered people hold. When Tipper Gore started the PMRC, many musicians came forward to speak about the injustice of censoring their art. To quickly note, Igor Stravinsky’s ballet “The Rite of spring” caused riots upon its debut. Music with no words whatsoever caused riots. Music holds emotions so deep in people and to simply put a bleep where a “bad” word is, takes the emotion away from the song, The integrity is lost and what purity was in the world dies away. As a musician, I believe all the world’s honesty lies in music and to censor our music to the extreme, with bleeps and blanks, is only progressing the disintegration of art. Would you burn an original Da Vinci? Probably not. So why ruin these artists words by putting a bleep where the curse is written.
Note-I'm sorry about the language, just trying to get my point across. Ironic, isn't it?
- anonymous's blog
- Login to post comments


fight the power!
One thing that will need to be established, and I've only read the introduction as a write this, is that the advisory stickers amount to censorship or prior restraint. That will be central to an effective argument.
What I'd suggest is first, find a better source than "About" because it lacks all authority. Actually, that's not the first concern. The first concern is to make the argument more appealing to those who don't mind or think it's not a big deal that the parental advisory stickers exist. Demonstrate, using the opinions of experts, that these stickers and the attitudes behind them are counterproductive and do not benefit parents, children or society at large, that they create a false sense of security. Play up what is gained by having offensive (depending upon one's perspective of course) notions floating around the marketplace of ideas, how it will make better citizens in the long run, something of that sort. There are plenty of people writing about this, plenty of people who are credible.
So, first be clear about what censorship is taking place and why it matters. Then be clear about why the rest of society is the winner when we eliminate this sort of censorship. The argument needs to appeal to the undecided parent of the kid who is thinking about getting the NWA album, not the kid and not the puritan who is strictly opposed to any thoughts out of the polite mainstream. Mill, while not counting as one of the sources, offers a good bit of support for this sort of thing so don't hesitate to use him.
Finally, consider providing some historical context. Much of what is considered "high art" today was initially viewed as being pornographic, Edvard Munch's "The Scream" among them. Much has faded into oblivion. Maybe if parents, or the morality police, would do better to just ignore this sort of thing, to not give it publicity, to not bring it to the fore, so it can die a quiet death rather than becoming the forbidden fruit that people want because they are told it's bad.
Bradley
comments
Intro- You have a very good intro you introduce you topic and have a quote from Mill. And you make it very clear what your paper is about
Thesis- Your thesis is easy to find and udnerstand
Development of ideas- All your paragraphs relate back to your thesis. And all the paragraphs start with a sentence telling what its going to be about
Oragnization- The paper reads well and each idea of each paragraph is written so it can be understood
Wording/Conventions- There are a few errors with puncuation and just some confusing wording "Strictly the get the kid to shut up" for examlpe, and in the first paragraph al needs to be Al
Adequacy of response- You response very well to your topic and provide good facts in supporting your thoughts
Appropriateness of topic- The topic you picked is a good one, it deals with freedom of speech and relates nicely to Mill
Introduction-Good intro.
Introduction-Good intro. Very interesting topic.
Essay Focus- You did a good job tying the essay back to the thesis and including Mill.
Development of Ideas- Good, stayed on topic.
Organization- good.
Wording-Good, didn't see anything wrong with the wording, easy to read.
Adequacy- You did a good job, stayed on topic
Appropriateness- Topic was interesting.
Peer review
Intro: Good, included citation from Mill, provided a clear idea of what this essay will talk about
Focus/Thesis: Focus of essay is clear and paragraphs tie back to thesis.
Development/Organization: paragraphs seem to be centered around certain ideas and go beyond supporting your side of the argument but also rebuttal the opposing view.
Adequacy/appropriateness: appropriate topic, follows assignment, looks to be around 1000-1100 words.
Response
Introduction: Your intro is good. It explains what your essay is about, uses a quote from mill, and provides a good background to your topic.
Essay Focus: You can clearly see that your essay focus is on censorship, you did a good job of defining your thesis
Development of Ideas: You did this well, and you included a sort of rebuttle, where you do see where the other side is coming from. Each paragraph relates back to the thesis
Organization: The only flaw I see it maybe putting your rebuttle at the end.
Wording, sentence structure: There are a few sentences that could use a little work, you start a few out with words such as "so" and you began sentences where they might have just needed a comma
Adequacy of response to assignment: I think you chose a good topic to go along with Mill on, I only see two sources, and you need four
Appropriateness: You used college age words and it is understandable.