04.24.07
Banning language without censorship?
On the heels of the Don Imus controversy, many conservative commentators pointed out that language like that used by Don Imus (and often much worst, actually) is rampant among pop culture, especially hip-hop, and why weren’t the same forces going after Imus with such gusto spending equal effort stamping out that form of offense?
In some respects, it’s a valid criticism. While Don Imus was making his infamous barbs against the delicate sensibilities of the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, at about 6:30 in the morning, I’ll wager that at least one other radio station was playing some music (most likely hip-hop) with lyrics more offensive than anything I or Imus would probably even understand; even if the words were bleeped out or altered, as is often the case on radio.
Today on CNN (and later, in this story from the BBC), I see that Russell Simmons has stepped up to start actually talking about this topic (or maybe he’s just using the issue to get publicity for his new self-help book?). In his CNN interview with Kiran Chetry, Russell put himself into the unfortunate position of calling for radio stations and publishers to ban certain words above and beyond the FCC’s infamous “7 words” (which I believe is something of an urban legend anyway), but at the same time, claiming that he is absolutely opposed to censorship.
Wikipedia has a nice 1-sentence definition of censorship that I like: “Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.” Whether that group is the FCC, a government, a corporation or a radio station, it is still censorship.
I suspect Simmons’ vacillation on the issue is due to everyone’s knee-jerk reaction to the word “censorship”. However, most of us would agree that there are some forms of censorship that make sense. Releasing the names of victims in sexual assault cases (especially when they are children), for instance, makes sense. Prohibiting people from publicly advocating a commission of a specific crime, makes sense. Simmons is in the unenviable position of trying to tell the entertainment industry that there are some things that are sensible to censor in hip-hop.
His problem is that while trying to simultaneously advocate the censorship of certain words in hip-hop while also alleviating hip-hop artists’ concerns of censorship, he ends up making both sides of the argument. Furthermore, as someone intimately aware of the artist’s plight, he actually makes the case against his advocacy much more effectively than he does for it.
On CNN (less obvious in the BBC article), Simmons passionately defended the right and need of artists to be able to express the world they live in, or their interpretations thereof. He even went so far as to talk about how poets have always said things that society didn’t necessarily like to hear, but that was to society’s benefit for artists be able to express freely. Well, if that’s so, then why shouldn’t an artist be able to express their world by using words like “ho” and “bitch”?
Simmons would say they should- but seems to at the same time be saying that radios and publishers should unilaterally ban the words if and when the artists say them. Ahem.. that’s called censorship.
I take a less idealistic view of “artistic” expression, including in this case as it relates to hip-hop. There are hip-hop tracks that are true expressions of the artists’ worlds (or the worlds they came from), and of the values therein. If someone comes from a world in which women are seen mainly as bitches and whores, then it is salient for them to express it. On the other hand, much of hip-hop today is not just expressing these values or pointing out these worldviews, but they are openly celebrating and advocating them.
There is a fine line between expression and exploitation. For instance I find nothing salient in the following lyrics:
Rich Boy sellin’ crack fuck niggas wanna jack
Shit tight no slack just bought a Cadillac
Took it to the chop shop
Got the damn top dropped two colored flip flopped
Candy red lollipop
There’s hoes in the parking lot
But i still got my glock cocked– Rich Boy, Throw Some D’s
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the above song should be banned somewhere. I find it somewhat entertaining, but I don’t really find it much of a poetic expression. Maya Angelou, Rich Boy ain’t.
The fact that artists are able to turn out these songs and sell them says a lot. Trying to ban their speech is like trying to fight only the supply-side of the “War on Drugs”. As long as people want to hear this stuff, they will, and somebody will supply it for them.
If a parent doesn’t want their children to listen to this, then they should probably take responsibility for raising their children. Sure, you can’t prohibit them all the time, but does that mean you don’t exhibit any control over your kids? Even if a parent can’t shelter a child all the time from listening to such and such music, or playing such and such video games, movies, etc., I think one can raise one’s children in a way that an occasional dip into the dirtier side of pop culture will not leave them tragically scarred.
