Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Media Hypocrisy Subverts American Culture
NewsMax.com ^ | Feb. 11, 2003 | Barrett Kalellis

Posted on 02/11/2003 9:30:32 PM PST by prman

Rap music should be outlawed even if it takes an Act of Congress to do it.

As a child of the fifties, I’m well aware of the fits that popular music caused my parents’ generation. Rock and roll was blamed for everything from teenagers’ Brylcreem ducktails to lewd dancing to juvenile delinquency.

Fifties rock and roll, though, seems high art compared to what saturates the airwaves today.

Back then, religious and civic leaders fulminated from pulpit and public square alike in condemning “the devil’s music.” In a famous and widely seen newsreel clip, the president of a citizens’ council from a Southern state insisted that “We shouldn’t allow our children to be brought down to this level.”

After listening to an hour’s worth of current rap music as represented by a performer who calls himself “50 Cent,” however, I’m beginning to think that this guy was unfortunately way ahead of his time.

I see nothing whatsoever to recommend this “music” to anyone; in fact, I think it is highly damaging to young people, and certainly subversive to art and civilization in general. It’s a “bad rap” for blacks to have this pernicious influence in their neighborhoods, and for this they have the media, venal businessmen and a gaggle of “black leaders” to blame, who do nothing to condemn it.

Among others, I accuse the major metropolitan newspapers, magazines and TV programs, particularly mediocre producers, editors and writers of the entertainment and features sections, who run story after story about the uneducated decadents who perform in and control this drug-infested industry. By doing so, they glorify this no-talent slime, unwittingly putting them in positions of successful role models for impressionable youth.

Eminem, Dr. Dre, Tupak Shakur, Ludacris, Jam Master Jay, P. Diddy, Snoop Dogg and the rest of the sorry lot are essentially a Sopranos-like organization of thugs who act and do business just like Tony, Ralphie and Uncle Junior. They lust after each other’s swag, cut into each other’s territories, and whack each other if someone gets dissed, all the while purveying noxious products.

Instead of Cosa Nostra dealers hanging around schoolyards, peddling coke and crank to school age children, rap moguls Suge Knight, Russell Simmons and lesser luminaries traffic in vulgar, immoral filth – infecting kids’ minds instead of their bodies.

Last Sunday, the Detroit Free Press spent five columns and a photo describing the star power of this “50 Cent,” noting that before he made it big in the music business, he was a crack dealer from Queens. Yet in the same issue, columnist Mitch Albom inveighed against rap vulgarity as entertainment. Didn’t this strike the editor as schizophrenic?

America’s newsrooms and TV studios are populated mainly by middle-aged scribblers, the overwhelming majority of whom, I would wager, have never listened approvingly to any rap music in their lives. If they did, we would question their intelligence and their sanity.

But they continue to give ink and air time to these “artists” because they think it’s somehow a trend that must be reported and they think it will interest their audiences. They mistakenly presume that educated persons who read their newspapers and watch their programs want this trash paraded before them.

In their heart of hearts, if these people don’t think this music has any merit, their attitude can only be compared to that of the drug-dealing don in “Godfather I” who reasons that it’s OK to peddle drugs only in certain neighborhoods: “Let them lose their souls.”

In other words, “If I don’t allow it in my house, who cares if others want to listen to it?” They are thus blind to its destructiveness.>{?

Has our culture become so debased that righteous people will not take a stand for what is patently immoral, degenerate and childishly posturing? Do we want young children to talk like they live on the wharf? Do we want them to regard women in lewd and degrading ways? Do we want to forgo inspiring youth to higher forms of artistic merit and expression by celebrating the untalented dregs?

Is there any other business where employees gain advancement by exhibiting and bragging about their crude, thuggish and criminal behavior?

In the fifties, certain novels were “Banned in Boston” because of their salacious language and sexual content. As misguided as these efforts may have been, they were based on a widely shared belief that there do exist bad influences on the moral fabric of society.

I challenge you, dear reader, to listen to the “music” of “50 Cent” and tell me that a diet of this stuff can’t rot children’s minds or perhaps give them brain cancer, or if nothing else, won’t certainly deaden their souls.

Barrett Kalellis is a columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: albertgore; albertgorejunior; algore; algorejr; algorelegacy; censorship; culture; firstammendment; freespeech; hiphop; media; music; pmrc; rap; rapisntmusic; rapmusic; tippergore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 02/11/2003 9:30:32 PM PST by prman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: prman
The arguments are well-stated. People have a terrible fear of "censorship" as though there is no action or expression foul, hideous, or depraved enough to warrant suppression. One argument is that such things don't affect people. This argument is patently untrue. If what one reads or hears or sees had little or no effect, then education, propaganda or religion would all have no effect.
2 posted on 02/11/2003 9:54:51 PM PST by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prman; pram
Rap music should be outlawed even if it takes an Act of Congress to do it.

I gotta a better political program its called anyone who is incapable of minding their own business should be shot.

3 posted on 02/11/2003 10:23:10 PM PST by weikel (Your commie has no regard for human life not even his own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pram
Ever hear of the 1st amendment?

I'm not willing to give it up are you?
4 posted on 02/11/2003 10:26:07 PM PST by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DB
According to Robert Bork (Slouching Towards Gomorrah), the first amendment originally referred to ideas. Not necessarily ANY mode of ANY kind of expression, which it has now been interpreted to mean. For instance, strippers, "Gay Pride" parades including unbelievably obscene and offensive displays, etc. IOW, the guys who wrote the first amendment did not mean that any and all offensive or disgusting action or expression of any kind deserved protection. Written or spoken ideas were what deserved protection, and even then up to a point - ideas inciting crime weren't, for instance.
5 posted on 02/11/2003 10:36:56 PM PST by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pram
When you outlaw "their" speech, they'll outlaw your speech.

Once you start going down that road it is only a matter of time before all speech is regulated by the all knowing government.
6 posted on 02/11/2003 10:52:47 PM PST by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pram
Bump.
7 posted on 02/12/2003 4:43:11 AM PST by prman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: prman
I hate the "ban because I don't like it" crowd. I hate having to deal with the idiots that seem to drive minivans, but I'm not calling for an end to minivans or the rounding up of their drivers.
8 posted on 02/12/2003 4:48:13 AM PST by zx2dragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zx2dragon
I think there is more being said here than "ban it because I don't like it". To ban something simply because it clashes with our own tastes is truly detestible. However, is it wrong to ban something that is potentially harmful to society? Philosophers back to the times of Plato have postulated that the music and entertainment found in a society tends to have a direct effect on the quality of that society itself. This is especially true in regards to the "music" listened to by those still in their formative stages. I believe the question should be whether there reaches a point where types of music become intolerable, not because groups of people dislike how they sound, but rather because they have a negative impact on our culture and society as a whole.

(For the record, I am not arguing that rap should be banned, but rather asking questions which are raised in my mind by this article.)
9 posted on 02/12/2003 5:15:38 AM PST by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DB
How about replying to what I actually said???? How about not just repeating slogans?
10 posted on 02/12/2003 8:18:59 AM PST by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: prman
Damn straight vulgar rap music should be banned. As should pornography, and all other kinds of sex-and-violence-dripping crap.
11 posted on 02/12/2003 8:38:45 AM PST by HumanaeVitae (If Eminem's music is not crap, then the term 'crap' has no meaning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
Your version of the First Amendment has only existed since the 1960s. Our version saw this country from 1791-1965 or so. I'll take mine over yours, dude.
12 posted on 02/12/2003 8:40:35 AM PST by HumanaeVitae (If Eminem's music is not crap, then the term 'crap' has no meaning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Damn straight vulgar rap music should be banned. As should pornography, and all other kinds of sex-and-violence-dripping crap.

Nice piroette onto the slippery slope there. Just realize it's a lot harder to get off said slope than it was to get on it.

13 posted on 02/12/2003 8:43:14 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MWS
However, is it wrong to ban something that is potentially harmful to society?

You've just caused the libertarian pin-ball machine to go **TILT**

14 posted on 02/12/2003 8:44:06 AM PST by A2J (From my cold, dead hands...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MWS
However, is it wrong to ban something that is potentially harmful to society?

Well, then, let's allow everyone to ban what THEY consider to be harmful to society. So we'll ban drugs, rap music, freon, saccharine, alcohol, tobacco, SUVs, junk food, pesticides, cars in general, houses that are too big, meat, logging, Western civilization, agriculture, and the human race as we know it, because all are considered to be harmful by SOMEONE, and then we can all rest assured that no harm is being done to society, because it won't exist any more.

15 posted on 02/12/2003 8:50:41 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MWS
And how can I make a laundry list of things to be banned without including guns? After all, guns cause billions of dollars of medical bills each year, they actually KILL people and they're really, really scary as well. That 2nd Amendment is just outdated, they didn't have automatic weapons 200 years ago, so private citizens don't need them today. /end gun-grabber emulation mode.
16 posted on 02/12/2003 8:54:02 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
...all other kinds of sex-and-violence-dripping crap.

In a way, we need to be careful about this. Rap, as it stands now, is less a testament of the streets than a money-making machine. Musically, there is no merit, but early on, the poetry was at least worth a read. It was kind of depressing.

If you're going to start banning absolutely everything presenting gratuitous sex and violence, some of the most stunning music ever written would be included, since those are two of the main themes in opera. The Prima Dona roles of La Boheme, Carmen, La Traviata, Tosca, among others are women with loose morals. The music is unparalleled, but the plots are all about sex and using other people. I won't get into Le Nozze di Figaro. It's my favorite and the plot is all about sex.

Where does the censorship stop?
17 posted on 02/12/2003 8:54:41 AM PST by Desdemona (my namesake is one of the only Prima Dona roles without fault. And one with a tough aria.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
I think we can exclude genital aerobics (pornography) at least from the mix in the beginning, Des...
18 posted on 02/12/2003 8:58:31 AM PST by HumanaeVitae (Libertarianism = Moral Relativism w/a Pocket Protector and Taped-Up Glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Banning rap is a non-starter. Conditions in the community that buys and supports rap music create the market. Banning rap music won't fix those core problems, in fact it would likely create one wicked riot.

Cart before the horse, rap doesn't CAUSE the problem, it's just a symptom of something much deeper.

19 posted on 02/12/2003 8:59:25 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
prima dona=prima donna

My Italian is slipping.
20 posted on 02/12/2003 9:00:01 AM PST by Desdemona (my namesake is one of the only Prima Donna roles without fault. And one with a tough aria.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
Cart before the horse, rap doesn't CAUSE the problem, it's just a symptom of something much deeper.

Yep, just as banning guns doesn't solve gun violence. Different proponents, same concept - that legislating away the symptom somehow cures the underlying disease.

21 posted on 02/12/2003 9:01:05 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Please read your American history. Look up "Lady Chatterly's Lover" and the history thereof.
22 posted on 02/12/2003 9:15:35 AM PST by HumanaeVitae (Libertarianism = Moral Relativism w/a Pocket Protector and Taped-Up Glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Please read your American history. Look up "Lady Chatterly's Lover" and the history thereof.

Hmmm ... so because we did it in the past, it was automatically a good thing? Such as slavery, segregation, internment of Japanese-Americans and other such happenings? Outlawing rap music would do nothing to change inner-city problems. But I'm sure it would make you feel warm and fuzzy that you were actually doing something, pointless or not, just as the Million Mom types get all soppy over their dream of banning guns in America because they think it would end gun violence.

23 posted on 02/12/2003 9:19:29 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
"Damn straight vulgar rap music should be banned. As should pornography, and all other kinds of sex-and-violence-dripping crap."

OR at the least the venue ought to regulated where all this sh*t isn't one-click-away accessible or foisted upon the masses as "art," for the consumption of all -- regardless of age.

24 posted on 02/12/2003 9:29:28 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
OR at the least the venue ought to regulated where all this sh*t isn't one-click-away accessible or foisted upon the masses as "art," for the consumption of all -- regardless of age.

Yeah! Just like gun owners should be required to use trigger locks so kids don't shoot themselves! With enough legislation, we can make sure that nothing bad ever happens to our children...

25 posted on 02/12/2003 9:31:25 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
"Your version of the First Amendment has only existed since the 1960s. Our version saw this country from 1791-1965 or so. I'll take mine over yours, dude."

Amazing how some delusional folks think the Republic was actually founded (for real) either at the time of Johnson's socialist program in 1965, OR upon the other socialist red-letter date and decision marking the legality of murder (Roe v. Wade) in '1973.

Apparently ALL pre-1964 history, mores, and values were lies.

26 posted on 02/12/2003 9:35:46 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Yep.

Forget left wingers. The next political battle is conservatives vs. libertarians...

27 posted on 02/12/2003 9:36:27 AM PST by HumanaeVitae (Libertarianism = Moral Relativism w/a Pocket Protector and Taped-Up Glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"Yeah! Just like gun owners should be required to use trigger locks so kids don't shoot themselves!"

Yeah right...

So if we did things your way, do 8 year old kids get to sit on a bar stool next to you, smoke a cigar, buy you a round, then get a lap dance?

28 posted on 02/12/2003 9:38:50 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
I agree that rap music adds no tangible benefits to society but my buck stops there. I don't buy it, I don't listen to it, I ignore it.

If someone asks what I think of it, I repeat the above sentiment.

Rap music as such reflects the very hypocrisy of the left that, on one hand, castigates any reference to a woman as a babe, smokin', hot momma, etc IF it's a white man and/or conservative while, on the other hand, has limited, non-existent criticism for any rappers' use of 'ho, bitch, slut, "get down on your knees and do your business" etc. UNLESS it involves someone like Eminem. Why. Well he's white of course.
29 posted on 02/12/2003 9:41:05 AM PST by torchthemummy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
"The next political battle is conservatives vs. libertarians..."

To some of these people, anarchy is only goal for true freedom.

30 posted on 02/12/2003 9:41:07 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
OR at the least the venue ought to regulated where all this sh*t isn't one-click-away accessible or foisted upon the masses as "art," for the consumption of all -- regardless of age.

I haven't heard any rap music in ages. Exactly how were you forced to listen to it?

31 posted on 02/12/2003 9:45:55 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: prman
Aristotle, Plato, Aristotle -- or, at least one or two of these guys warned that corrupt music would corrupt the youth, and, eventually, undermine the civilization. (And, these guys were practicing queers, if memory serves.)

Were they correct? Well, anyone heard of ancient Greek culture surviving intact for the past 2500 years?
32 posted on 02/12/2003 9:57:12 AM PST by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I gotta a better political program its called anyone who is incapable of minding their own business should be shot.

/ / / /
Stated like a true gangsta thug rappah!
33 posted on 02/12/2003 9:59:09 AM PST by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenR2
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
34 posted on 02/12/2003 10:01:41 AM PST by weikel (Anti democratic right of Atilla reactionary objectivist tory minarchist monarchist 4eva)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: weikel
LOL. Touche!
35 posted on 02/12/2003 10:02:05 AM PST by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
So if we did things your way, do 8 year old kids get to sit on a bar stool next to you, smoke a cigar, buy you a round, then get a lap dance?

No, current law makes that illegal as it is. However, the path you propose would open the way for busybodies to deny ADULTS the ability to smoke a stogie and down a round, as they will take your desires to control porn and use the mechanisms to control their pet peeve.

36 posted on 02/12/2003 10:12:37 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
Right on, but continue because the drug problem fits here too.
37 posted on 02/12/2003 10:13:48 AM PST by MoGalahad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
"Where does the censorship stop?"

Perhaps for some of you people the point a chimp is engaged in fellatio in Macy's front window; For others, it's the same scenario during a school play...

Maybe some of you didn't get the memo of 1776-1965 before America was hijacked by moral relativists.

38 posted on 02/12/2003 10:42:50 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
"I haven't heard any rap music in ages. Exactly how were you forced to listen to it?"

I guess some cretins fail to apprehend the detriment of "rap" music's glorification of raping "bitches" and killing cops to the minds of nine-year olds.

39 posted on 02/12/2003 10:50:08 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"However, the path you propose would open the way for busybodies to deny ADULTS the ability to smoke a stogie and down a round, as they will take your desires to control porn and use the mechanisms to control their pet peeve."

Baloney.

40 posted on 02/12/2003 10:51:08 AM PST by F16Fighter (The Democrats --The Party of Marxists, moral relativists and political eunuchs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Baloney.

Such a strong rebuttal. Look around you. The busybodies are asking the feds and state governments to ban guns, limit fast food, outlaw SUVs, restrict smoking and pass laws to aid many other causes. In turn, too many conservatives are in favor of limited government until it comes to their pet peeve, and then it's time to unleash the legislators. Of course, it never stops with banning porn or indoor smoking. It just starts there.

41 posted on 02/12/2003 10:54:10 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Interesting points. However, I was not saying that everything someone considers harmful ought to be banned. I would not even say that it should be a matter of what the "majority" of people believe to be harmful, as we know that simply because a majority of people believe something to be true does not make it so. However, one can certainly evaluate things based on their merits. What benefit comes from what is being considered? What harm does it cause? Does it create the problems it is related to or is it merely a symptom of larger problems? If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it? We elect representatives to debate and discuss issues for the very purpose of considering such matters and to pass laws in accordance with their decisions (that the system has been reduced to simple pandering for votes is a sad, sad thing).

I suppose my main contention is with this notion that society has no right to ban certain activities and that all such bans are really just matters of "preference" on the part of a few.
42 posted on 02/12/2003 1:25:23 PM PST by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MWS
If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it?

What is important is to recognize the inherent dangers in having government determine what is beneficial to us. For example, I like beer and a good steak. There are do-gooders who see no benefit to me having either. If the answer to your question is NO, they would be justified in having the government prohibit me from consuming either.

43 posted on 02/12/2003 1:28:17 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
I guess some cretins fail to apprehend the detriment of "rap" music's glorification of raping "bitches" and killing cops to the minds of nine-year olds.

I guess this "cretin" does. Why don't you spell it out in detail, genius. And be sure to include all relevant research, peer-reviewed, of course.

Forgive me for being unimpressed by your hysterical suppositions.

44 posted on 02/12/2003 2:00:50 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
I guess some cretins fail to apprehend the detriment of "rap" music's glorification of raping "bitches" and killing cops to the minds of nine-year olds.

I guess this "cretin" does. Why don't you spell it out in detail, genius. And be sure to include all relevant research, peer-reviewed, of course.

Forgive me for being unimpressed by your hysterical suppositions.

45 posted on 02/12/2003 2:01:30 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
What is important is to recognize the inherent dangers in having government determine what is beneficial to us. For example, I like beer and a good steak. There are do-gooders who see no benefit to me having either. If the answer to your question is NO, they would be justified in having the government prohibit me from consuming either.

I agree that, generally speaking, it is VERY dangerous to allow government determine what is beneficial for us in an unchecked manner. (I've read too many dystopia novels to believe otherwise)

However, government certainly is a necessary component to stable society, is it not? Governments exist to regulate the manner in which a society works so that there can be at least some order in the daily interactions of those who constitute it. Societies need laws if they are to function properly.

The fact is that society has legislative government precisely for the purpose of deciding what is beneficial to society and what is harmful. This is technically what a government does when it passes a law. This also happens to be what is dangerous about government- in its role to decide these things to some degree, it can overstep its bounds and become overly intrusive. Ultimately, this is why the founding fathers, in their brilliance, created our system in the manner which they have. The powers that the government possesses were split so that, when one branch goes beyond what it is permitted, it can be overridden. Politicians that legislate in a manner that tramples the rights of the citizenry are replaced in the next election. When the government as a whole begins to overstep its role the people, if they were wise enough to hold on to them, have recourse to their guns and revolt.

(Lest I fall into a trap I am unwittingly laying for myself, I should add that I believe regulations along the lines I am speaking of should happen on the state or city level, and certainly not on the national level.)

A society without government cannot remain stable. A government without the ability to pass laws is not really a government. A law that does not make any judgement regarding what is "beneficial" and "harmful" to society is not really a law. Government does exist to make judgements such as these. The key is that we remain vigilant and not let it go beyond what is reasonable.

46 posted on 02/12/2003 2:13:22 PM PST by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MWS
The fact is that society has legislative government precisely for the purpose of deciding what is beneficial to society and what is harmful.

I have less of an issue with a government determining harm than I do having them determine benefit, and believe governments should react accordingly.

47 posted on 02/12/2003 2:16:13 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I have less of an issue with a government determining harm than I do having them determine benefit, and believe governments should react accordingly.

Actually, I agree. Originally I only meant that government should weigh the benefits and harmful aspects of the matters it is considering. Guns may have the "harmful effect" of killing people, but they also have benefits that offset that- they help people defend themselves from violent criminals, among other things. That's all I meant when I said that government needs to determine what is beneficial at times.

48 posted on 02/12/2003 2:21:09 PM PST by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MWS
"However, is it wrong to ban something that is potentially harmful to society"?

That is one heck of a good question.(Well,ask yourself, how could Hillary Clinton possibly be allowed to become a U.S. Senator? But I digress) Looking back to the 80's and 90's when Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest (in separate court cases) were sued by the parents of children who listened to "that Heavy Metal Music" as they called it, and claimed the lyrics instructed them to end their own lives ( which in both cases were proven false,of course ), it is my opinion that Rap ( or any music that doesn't ring my ear) as explicit and unappealing as it may be---it is more the lack of discipline/direction by the parent(s) in their kids lives that determine how the child develops.I don't allow that music in my home,know that.But you can't ban music---anyone can create a song and put it online nowadays anyway, but it's my choice to ignore it and spend my money elsewhere.Tipper Gore put labels on CD's in 198?. That's more than enough of a ridiculous action already IMO.

49 posted on 02/12/2003 2:33:22 PM PST by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug , Holier-Than-Thou Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: prman
I'm not sold on censorship. The media doesn't need to support this man with radio airplay or interviews though.

There have been former hoods with recording careers before (including members of the Ramones, Merle Haggard, and others of different musical persuasions). Some artists like Johnny Cash continue to record dark songs. There is a "lifestyle" (known as being a "playa" in "the game") that is being sold. The media doesn't need to support it but they do. I was surprised to see gansta hip hop videos being aired locally in Houston on PBS on Saturday nights. There is a double standard but I don't want to see things defined downward as "equal opportunity" outrage is given its coverage).

Some of it is a vamp. Playing up an image that has nothing to do with reality. There were songs with rough sexual and violent lyrics in the 1950s (this is from the man who wrote and first cut "Good Rockin' Tonight" on that same label, Roy Brown and His Mighty Men). This wasn't even a "white label" adults only party record. This is a blues shouter but it could almost be a rap as it is more spoken/shouted than "sang":

BUTCHER PETE (PART 1 & 2)
(Brown - Bernard)
ROY BROWN (DELUXE 3301, 1950)

(Part I)

Hey everybody, did the news get around
About a guy named Butcher Pete
Ol' Pete just flew into this town
And he's choppin' up all the women's meat

[Chorus]
He's hackin' and whackin' and smackin'
He's hackin' and whackin' and smackin'
He's hackin' and whackin' and smackin'
He just hacks, whacks, choppin' that meat

Butcher Pete's got a long sharp knife
He starts choppin' and don't know when to stop
All you fellows better watch your wives
'Cause Pete don't care who's meat he chops

[Chorus]

Ever since Pete flew into town
He's been havin' a ball
Just cuttin' and choppin' for miles around
Single women, married women, old maids and all

[Chorus]

Wakes up in the morning, half past five
Chops from sunrise to sunset
I don't see how he stays alive
Meat's gonna be the death of ol' Pete yet

[Chorus]

The police put Pete in jail
Yes, he finally met his fate
But when they came to pay his bail
They found him choppin' on his cellmate

[Chorus]

That Butcher Pete is a crazy man
Tries to chop down the wind and the rain
Just hacks on anything he can get
Say, turn this record over, you ain't heard nothing yet

(Part II / Side II)

Well, they let ol' Pete out of the jail
He went back to his store
All the women who payed his bail
Were waitin' on Pete to chop some more

[Chorus]

There's an old woman, who's ninety-two
Lives down the street
She said, one thing more I wanna do
Is find ol' Pete and let him chop my meat

[Chorus]

Pete went to church one Sunday night
He gave the preacher a fit
That crazy Pete started a fight
When he went hackin' on the pulpit

[Chorus]

Well, they put him in jail again
They tried to give him life
Pete beat the case, he pleaded insane
They gave him back his same ol' knife

[Chorus]

He got out of jail on Sunday night
Monday he tightened his grip
He started to China to see the sights
Went nuts again and chopped up the ship

[Chorus]

They brought ol' Pete back to town
To electrocute him there
But Pete was crazy like a clown
He chopped down that electric chair

[Chorus]

He's a maniac!
He don't do nothin' but hack.

Music censorship in the 1950s gave us an extreme example when there were bans in Boston (and elsewhere) of the Link Wray instrumental called "Rumble" because it was "too suggestive".

50 posted on 02/12/2003 3:40:48 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson