Media Hypocrisy Subverts American Culture

NewsMax.com ^ | Feb. 11, 2003 | Barrett Kalellis

[First Amendment]

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.

[weikel]

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.

[DB]

Ever hear of the 1st amendment?

I'm not willing to give it up are you?

[First Amendment]

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.

[DB]

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.

[prman]

Bump.

[zx2dragon]

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.

[MWS]

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.)

[First Amendment]

How about replying to what I actually said???? How about not just repeating slogans?

[HumanaeVitae]

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

[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.

[dirtboy]

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.

[A2J]

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**

[dirtboy]

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.

[dirtboy]

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.

[Desdemona]

...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?

[HumanaeVitae]

I think we can exclude genital aerobics (pornography) at least from the mix in the beginning, Des...

[xsrdx]

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.

[Desdemona]

prima dona=prima donna

My Italian is slipping.