Freedom at its Finest

Yes, obviously there is censorship in music. When is there not? Well, I guess that depends on what music you listen to. But how is “Explicit” defined? Who is to say that a word or phrase is offensive? It’s up to the perception of the audience.

Green Day can attest to that. With their releases of American Idiot in 2004 and 21^st Century Breakdown in 2009, lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong  (pictured left) refused to edit their music to reach Wal-Mart’s policy. Therefore, in those years one wouldn’t find any Green Day record on the shelves of any Wal-Mart stores.

“There’s nothing dirty about our record,” Armstrong said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Personally, I don’t think they are being insensitive.  For Armstrong, as I see it, music is a way to publicize his views; especially in American Idiot hitting on the government and the near future of war. He wanted to be vocal. So he was.  Its Armstrong’s way to call the problems of our society to mind.  Its inevitable, no matter how you approach a subject, someone will take offence to another’s opinions. Who is to say we can’t voice personal perspectives on a problem at hand?

According to Armstrong, if you want to censor someone, what does that say about speaking his mind?

I believe it’s a limitation of creativity. If an artist decides upon language and context, that according to society should be censored, it’s their personal choice. No one is forced to listen to the music.

Even with Green Day’s decision of non-censoring to the biggest music retailor, 21^st Century Breakdown reached the top of Billboard 200 in the short span of 3 days.

But in an opposite viewpoint, to relate to a current event, recently an article was written about Philadelphia’s Neshaminy High School's paper, the Playwickian. The students were sent to the principal for being too sensitive . Too sensitive! How? Because their mascot, the Redskins, was seen as offensive by the students. They in turn removed the word “Redskins” from any piece of publication.

This is unfair to the students—being in trouble for the belief of censoring themselves. It was their decision to eliminate the word. And in the recent staff editorial, it states, “Detractors will argue that the word is used with all due respect. But the offensiveness of a word cannot be judged by its intended meaning, but by how it is received.”

By taking into account the audience, rhetoric is in mind. The stance is taken in position to account the perception of the reader. I see no reason why the school is taking offence to the matter.

According to editor-and-chief of the Playwickian Gillian McGoldrick, they are not giving into the pressure of using the word. No one should be forced into saying something they don’t want to.

It’s called freedom of speech. Sometimes the absence is stronger than saying the word. So, is the school breaking the first amendment?

 

I’d say yes. This is not in any way affecting the government negatively, which is the only reason why the first amendment would be suppressed. It is a decision. One made justly. One made thoughtfully.

Constantly we are told to use our voices for positive impact in our social world. But we are hindered by those educators, as shown above, who deemed it wrong to remove a simple word that could obviously be taken as an insult.