Okay, let's talk about censorship
for a moment. I'm assuming from my headline you already know my thoughts on the
matter but I'm going to elaborate on why. First we must ask, what is
censorship? A dictionary will give you a pretty vague explanation like, "the
act of censoring." So, what does it mean to censor? The answer is of
course is to cover, prohibit, or hide certain words, images, phrases, opinions,
or writings because the material is considered by the powers that be to be
morally or principally objectionable. The only problem with using such a
definition is that one must now determine the basis for which something is
considered to be objectionable. That my friends, opens up a whole new can of
worms. What one person finds to be reprehensible, another might not have any
problem with at all. For instance, if I say "Fuck the Steelers,"
you're going to react in 1 of 3 ways. Either you're going to say, "Hey,
fuck you! The Steelers Rule!" Or you might shrug it off and say nothing at
all because my opinion matters very little to you. After all, everyone is
entitled to their opinion right? The other reaction might be, "why'd you
have to use the F-word?" Now, living in the city of Pittsburgh the
majority of people are likely going to disagree with my abrasive dismissal of
their favorite sports team. That’s no problem. Unpopular opinions are still
opinions. The problem would be being, by law, prohibited from voicing that
opinion. Now, you’re probably thinking, this is the USA, freedom of speech! What
I’m here to tell you today is that somewhere down the line the first amendment
has been altered in the hearts and minds of the people and its government to
mean, freedom of speech as long as it’s the popular opinion.
I once
walked into the mall to get a haircut having forgotten that I was wearing a Rob
Zombie’s House of 1,000 Corpses
t-shirt that proclaimed, “Everyone fucking dies” on the back. As soon as I
signed my name on the waiting list at the salon an older man approached me and
said, “Son you shouldn’t be wearing that. It doesn’t look good.” Well, I kind
of agreed with him. I said, “I apologize, I forgot I was even wearing the
shirt.” A few minutes later as I was waiting my turn to get snipped a security
guard approached me and said “we’ve gotten several complaints about your
t-shirt.” Which of course means, “This one guy is totally offended by your
t-shirt.” As to not make a scene I quietly left the mall. I still think of that
day though. There was so much wrong with that scenario that it still eats at
me. First off, I was wearing a t-shirt with a tagline for a movie on it. Is a
movie and its tagline not a freedom of expression as guaranteed by the 1st
Amendment of the U.S. constitution? Was it not my free choice to represent that
movie? Also, why would me wearing a t-shirt with a word somebody doesn’t
approve of bother someone so much that they actually walked all the way down to
the end of the mall to talk to someone at the security office? This person was
acting as if I had stolen something, kicked a baby, and snorted coke off the
fountain on my way out. This person was so greatly offended by nothing more
than a word. Words only have the power we give them. Obviously, he gave that
word a lot of power. What this person did not realize though, by bucking at my
right of free expression, he was denying my rights as a U.S. citizen.
It is
said that Voltaire, a French writer and philosopher, said, “I disapprove of
what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire
died in 1778, two years after The Declaration of Independence was written. This
quote embodies all of what our founding fathers intended with the 1st
Amendment. That right, still to this day, is absolute. It is not to be twisted
and manipulated to make 1 or 100,000 happy. It is in place to make us as a
whole happy. To allow us to be free to speak our mind, create, challenge, and
enlighten all those who care to listen. You do not have to listen but you can’t
stop me from talking!
In 2013
this just shouldn’t be an issue. I shouldn’t have to sit here and explain the 1st
Amendment to anyone. In all actuality, anyone reading this blog most likely
knows of the Bill of Rights and what it means to us as a people. People who don’t
understand the Bill of Rights will say things like, “but what about the
children?” Well good sir or mam, that is up to you as a parent. You are to
teach your children what you believe to be right or wrong. You are to teach
your children of the ‘golden rule’ and instill them with morality, laws, and
boundaries. That is not up to me. You cannot tell adults what they can’t say in
public because of what you teach your children. In fact, kids need to hear some
things. If children are not exposed to anything then they will not know how to
handle themselves when they enter the real world and have no choice but to hear
things they don’t like. Again, my freedom of speech is absolute. I will not
make it a point to say things to your child that you would not want them to
hear out of respect for you and the morality I have in myself. I will not be
barred from expressing myself in a public forum because somebody doesn’t like
the words on my shirt or coming out of my mouth. Those words are only bad
because someone says they are bad.
What we
have in cases of people shutting out the freedom of speech is a discussion of
taste. Taste does not make the law. There is nothing wrong with finding something
distasteful. We all do. We must, however, realize that others may not.
Adversely, what we find to be perfectly okay, somebody else may not. We reserve
ourselves amongst others so that we don’t offend them out of respect. Not
because we will be flogged, tarred and feathered, or burned at the stake if we
don’t. Look at it like this, in the Western world, eye contact when talking to someone
is a sign of respect. In other places in the world, such as the Far East,
direct eye contact is a sign of disrespect. I love bacon but I would not expect
a Jew or a Muslim to eat bacon. I respect their opinions and beliefs. I can
live with the fact that you don’t like what I have to say. You have that right.
You must also learn that I have a difference in opinion and I’m entitled to it.
One of
the biggest slaps-in-the-face of our constitution comes by way of censorship in
art. Yes, there are laws against the exploitation of children and animals.
There should be. They are not mentally capable of making decisions that adults
can make. There is a scientific basis for this and it must be understood and
respected. However, what 2 or more consenting adults engage in is the business
of those adults. If you don’t like reading Hustler
magazine and seeing those naked photo spreads don’t read it.
I mention Hustler, specifically because its founder and publisher, Larry
Flynt, is one of the greatest champions of the 1st Amendment ever.
You may not agree with some of Larry’s choices as a person and you may not
agree with the work he does but you need to respect his right to do it. It was
a long hard battle for him that resulted in multiple lawsuits, imprisonments,
and even the use of his legs in an assassination attempt. He held in there
though. He fought hard for all of us, whether that was his intention or not
matters in the least. He did it so that we are able to exercise the right
afforded to us by the framers of our constitution. Most famously, he defeated
Jerry Falwell in the Supreme Court over his right to parody public figures. If
one puts themselves in the public eye, the public has the right to make fun of
them. That my friends, is guaranteed by the freedom of speech. You can say what
you want about that person. That’s not to say that your reputation and relationships
business or otherwise, will not suffer as a result of your outspokenness. The
people you may do business with may not agree with what you say and they have a
right not to do business with you. They have a right to say what they think of
you just as easily as you do them.
Without
Larry Flynt’s court victory, shows like Saturday
Night Live, South Park, The Simpsons, and Family Guy may have had a harder time getting their material on the
air. The reason being that for everyone out there with a sense of humor, one of
the celebrities they parody might have been able to sue them for defamation.
Luckily, Larry won and we as a people were guaranteed that we are allowed to
say how much we think a certain band sucks or do a laughingly bad impersonation
of even the President of the United States on live TV.
When it
comes to movies, we have a little organization called the Motion Picture
Association of America. They are a bunch of nameless, faceless,
paid-in-the-shadows individuals who get to decide whether the material
presented in your movie is offensive or not. They get to tell you that if you
don’t cut 10 seconds of sex or 5 seconds of a decapitation your movie isn’t
going to be played in a theater with a rating that will allow a bunch of people
to view your movie and make you any kind of profit. Even worse they may ban the
movie outright and say that it just can’t be played in a movie theater. Okay,
here’s the issue with that. Should objectionable material be kept from the eyes
of children who do not understand the context? I think so. Is it my job to tell
someone else what is right or wrong for their children? Absolutely not. Even
worse, who the hell is the MPAA to tell me, an adult, what I shouldn’t watch?
That is my choice and my choice alone. It is the filmmaker’s choice to present
a film with their message and my choice to receive that message or not. Leave
it up to us MPAA; we don’t need a Big Brother movie agency.
Music,
there’s another fun one for you. Wal-Mart, I’m looking at you. Why is Wal-Mart
allowed to sell edited CDs? No I’m sorry. They should be allowed to sell edited
copies. The real question is why don’t they sell the original cut of the album
in the way the artist intended also? If they want to restrict the sale of a CD
based on lyrical content to a minor, they have that right as a company. It’s
also very much appreciated by parents. Why don’t they have the un-edited one
for me the adult? The answer is because Wal-Mart does not want you to hear the
un-edited CD because someone at Wal-Mart has deemed it in bad taste. Once more
I will say, bad taste doesn’t mean a damn thing when compared to the law of the
land, the United States Constitution. I will give Wal-Mart this though, they do
mark that their CDs are edited. Some other outlets do not. I bought 3 copies of
the last Meatloaf album from 3 different stores before I got the one with Meatloaf
singing “she’ll fuck you when she’s done,” on the track “Like A Rose.” Was the
word “fuck” really necessary to my enjoyment of this album? No, not really. But
it was the lyric the artist chose and let’s be honest, when you’re singing
along do you want the chorus to drop off or worse have a beeping sound? That
really throws off the flow of the song!
So, I
hope you think about what I have said. I hope you realize that bad taste,
popular opinion, and individual morals and motives cannot interfere with our 1st
Amendment. It is what separates us from unjust dictatorships. When we ban one
thing we soon ban something else. It’s a slippery slope that leads to nowhere
good. We as Americans must learn to be tolerant of each other and the different
beliefs and opinions that we carry. I would love to see the entire world live
with that philosophy but for now, if we can embrace it ourselves, I’ll be more
than happy. You don’t have to agree with what someone says but you should be
able to acknowledge their right to say it. Art is a form of expression and
therefore it must also be protected under that same clause. If you believe that
what I say isn’t worthy of the constitution’s protection because you find it to
be in bad taste, there are plenty of other countries with your beliefs you
could be living in. Agree with me, cool. Disagree with me, cool. Don’t restrict
me. It’s un-American my friend.
