Censorship Is Not Solution for Trashy TV

Cash is the Mother’s Milk of Pop Culture
By Steve LaTulippe

Throughout human history, culture has served one major purpose: to inculcate the young with the values and customs of their people so as to prepare them to carry forward the work of their civilization. A casual glance at various traditional cultures demonstrates plenty of examples. American Indian tribes carefully instructed young men in their warrior and hunter traditions. Greek philosophers taught the political and literary ideals of their polis. Every previous culture has recognized the fundamental importance of this mission.

As the recent “Super Bowl breast scandal” clearly demonstrates, our culture is now functioning in the reverse. Instead of teaching the rising generation our values and traditions, our popular culture now feeds them massive doses of perversion and decadence. Rather than preparing them to carry the baton of civilization, they are being propagandized with hideously dysfunctional belief systems that are creating social havoc across the length and breadth of our nation.

To understand the genesis of this change (and to construct strategies to reverse the tide), it is critical to understand the forces that have brought us to this sad state of affairs. Since the 1950’s two trends have intersected to produce the sorry spectacle which popped out onto our TV screens last Sunday.

First, by the mid-twentieth century, young people in our society obtained access to money for discretionary spending for the first time in history. In previous eras, cultural products were mostly marketed to adults, since adults were generally the only ones with money to spend. The amazing wealth-generating abilities of our free market economy led to a situation where adolescents could purchase things on their own. Since teens are, by definition, somewhat immature, media moguls quickly learned that they could seduce youngsters to part with their new-found money by offering them music and movies which flaunted the accepted moral standards of their parents. Elvis’ hips, and the subsequent fortune that he made by swinging them, paved the way for others to quickly follow.

The second trend was the rise of electronic media. The invention of TV, radio, and movies created a mass marketing tool for moguls to by-pass parents and directly offer their wares to youths. Furthermore, nationwide electronic media allowed these industries to homogenize young people into one common taste. In previous eras, music was largely a local and regional affair. But once children could tune into one set of radio and TV stations across the nation, they could be propagandized into coveting the same set of products. This enabled the rise of a new phenomenon in history: mass youth culture.

The problem with marketing pop culture to youths is that it requires the industry to continually push the envelope. Shock value quickly wears off. A singer today who moves his hips like Elvis would go totally unnoticed in our current culture…things have plummeted way beyond that. Thus, there is now an “invisible hand of the marketplace” which motivates artists to engage in a race to the bottom (I should note at this juncture that Janet Jackson has a new CD coming out soon…which suggests an obvious motivation for her Super Bowl publicity stunt).

These factors lead to a sober dictum: The central reality of our current culture is that it no longer exists to inculcate youths with values, but rather to make money by marketing perversion to vulnerable adolescents.

Understanding this metamorphosis, which is actually quite a profound change in human history, is necessary before we can possibly hope to rectify the situation.

Having pondered the forces that brought about the exposure of Miss Jackson’s nipple ring, I believe that conservatives must accept an unpalatable fact: so long as the current sets of incentives are in place, the situation will only get worse. The race to the bottom will continue. This year’s breast will be replaced by next year’s penis.

Nevertheless, I believe that direct government action to suppress artistic expression, regardless of how debauched, is wrong. I am a First Amendment absolutist. The government cannot get into the business of censorship.

But keeping in mind the above set of motivating factors, I believe that the “chink in the armor” of this dynamic is the money. While I certainly do not disapprove of the profit motive, I do object to the exploitation of the natural rebelliousness of youths by addicting them to depravity. The very future of our civilization is at stake. The litany of adolescent pathologies in our culture is all too familiar, from sexually transmitted diseases to depression and suicide.

Having said this, I believe that conservatives should pursue the following strategy: We should militate for a reform of our copyright laws to remove the profit motive from the production of perverse art.

The Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall have the power:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This statement leads me to two conclusions.

First, is that Congress has the power to grant copyrights…not the obligation. It does not say that Congress shall grant them, but rather that it shall have the power to grant them.

Second, it clearly states that this power is granted to promote "useful" arts.

Thus, I contend that the only way to clean up our culture and save future generations of Americans from the current depredations of our popular culture industry is for our elected representatives to judiciously withhold copyright protection from debauched art. Congress is permitted to grant it, and is therefore permitted to withhold it. I challenge anyone to convince me that gangster rap is a “useful” art.

In practice, we should encourage Congress to pass a simple set of standards which would be applied to all art (or at least all art for which the artist desires copyright protections). For example, the use of one of George Carlin’s “seven forbidden words” in a song or TV show would automatically remove copyright protection from that production. Songs which encourage shooting the police or raping women would likewise be left unprotected.

The important thing here is that no one would be forbidden to express anything in any artistic creation. P. Diddy could discuss his sexual practices in his music to his heart’s content. But anyone would be permitted to copy, swap, sell, or reproduce it without legal penalty.

The effect that this policy would have on our popular culture would be nothing short of amazing. Since, as I noted above, the whole thing exists to make money by seducing youths into rebellious depravity, the removal of the profit motive would short circuit the whole morbid affair.

The practitioners of our popular culture often state that they are merely expressing deeply held beliefs. They are venting their rage at an unjust society. They generally make a big deal out of their non-materialistic ethos. We should take them at their word. If they need to express themselves in this manner…by all means, do so. But stripping the profit from the art will be an interesting test of the sincerity of these stated motivations.

My hunch is that they are really just in it for the cash.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.