Freedom of
how hard is
to unde
■ l|i I
AARON COOPER is a senior
English major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
Something rank is in the air.
It exudes the bittersweet stench of a 3-month
old tuna sandwich. It tastes like the layer of grime
and rust caked at the bottom of a dumpster. It
rings in our ears like an off-key note being played
for hours without pause.
Ignorance. No doubt about it.
The problem with censorship is that the
wrong people are the censors. In fact, those self
proclaimed “censors” who believe in their so
called authority are often the ones who need to be
censored most. They think they have America’s
“best interests” in mind when they ban “Catcher
in the Rye” from our public schools or 2 Live
Crew from our music stores.
I don’t buy that.
I don’t buy some 43-year-old senator or 69
year-old local politician telling me the music I
like is not “acceptable” for my ears or that it
sends me messages about blowing away the next
person I see.
It’s easy for them to sit in a room, sign some
obscure and politically-worded document and
declare that my favorite artist is obscene and
unfit for public consumption.
Welcome to America - the land of the “well.
not quite, but almost and hopefully some day”
free and the home of the “I can decide what’s
right for everyone so that makes me” brave.
This is not acceptable.
Somewhere in America, there is a group of
local citizens and politicians in Smalltown, USA,
which is about to declare to its community that
its children should no longer be able to read “The
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” because it is
“rough, coarse and inelegant” and furthermore
unsuitable for “intelligent, respectable people.”
Where do these people get off spitting on a
constitutional amendment? Sometimes I wonder
if the problem maybe starts with the simple act of
reading. I hope by now we all know the basic text
of the First Amendment. Yet, some people, some
seemingly ignorant people, are evidently reading
a different version than you or me. Maybe this is
how they read it:
Congress should make any law it so chooses
respecting an establishment ofreligion, or pro
hibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the semi-freedom ofspeech, or of the press... and
basically allow anyone who perceives to retain
authority to decide what is best for everyone they
so desire.
What other possible explanation is there for
the act of determining that free speech or free
dom of the press means anything less than
FREE? Not “semi-free,” “almost free,” or “in the
vicinity of being free” - FREE!
If we banned every book, every compact
disc, every song, every poem or every mono
logue that offended someone in America, then art
would cease to exist in anything but pre-school
form. Is anyone out there offended by “The Cat
in the Hat”?
America, what is the hang-up with BAD
words? We shouldn’t say “s***,” but it’s OK to
say “lawyer.” It’s not polite to say “bitch,” but
“jerk” is a little better. What about “dipwad?”
That can appear in any radio broadcast in
the country.
Words carry no power on their
own. It’s the meaning we create /
out of them, the way we
address them, that fiiels the
fire of hostility.
We need to subscribe to the
unpopular theory of desensitiza
tion. We need to stop ban
ning,denouncing and regu
lating everything so that
people don’t find it as
appealing to say these
“bad” words or listen
to these “controver
sial” albums as much.
In Chinese, Coca
Cola supposedly
means “bite the ;
wax tadpole.” We
better eradi
cate this
diseased
problem from
our society. I don’t want
to hand my internation
al friends a drink that
will imply I don’t like
them very much.
Don’t think for a second that by “free^®§^|
speech I believe we should be able to say whatev-’’"*
er we want with pure unrestricted protection. If a
man seduces children on the Internet for purpos
es of pornography, he should be arrested, and we
should throw away the key.
The problem with free speech is that those
who abuse it most are the ones who have ulterior,
selfish or immoral motives. I think free speech
should exist as long as it doesn’t infringe on the
basic rights of another person, such as general
safety and the pursuit of happiness.
I think freedom of expression should exist on
the same level. Again, ignorance and hateful
motives are behind acts of putting a Nazi flag on
the door of a Jewish person, but education will
solve that problem rune tunes out of 10.
A flag with red, black and white depicting a
swastika is obviously a message intended to con
vey hatred. But a swastika drawn in a quilt or
painted on a religious building denotes a sign of
good luck in many cultures.
America, if you want your children to stop
hurting each other, then instill values in them that
will prevent them from taking Ice T literally. I
believe laws that would keep albums such as Ice
T’s “Cop Killer” or Bone Thugs-N-Harmony’s
“The Art of War” out of children’s hands are
good laws.
But laws that would attempt to restrict these
artists from expressing their views and artistic
works are in direct contradiction with the Bill of
Rights.
No one can see to the explicit obedience of
every law, so teach your children, America, to lis
ten to all sides and filter them from within. Teach
them the dangers of drugs, the risks of smoking
and the problems with haphazard teen-age sex so
that one song or one book won’t turn them into a
senai rapist or drug dealer.
Cooper’s Law: Freedom of expression is not
the problem. Freedom of ignorance is.
Read “banned” books, not because they are
banned, but because they are as much a part of
literature as those books that are not banned
Listen to 2 Live Crew, not because they have
been censored enough to last 20 lifetimes, but
because they strike a chord within you - one that
makes you feel alive and view the world in a dif
ferent way.
Pointing a disapproving finger at an art work,
especially if you haven’t truly “listened” to lyrics
or read between the lines of a major literary
work, is worthless.
Not all rappers write lyrics that so many peo
ple question. Listen to E40’s “Things’l Never
Change” or Fiend’s “Take My Pain.” And why
aren’t more country artists banned? People say
rap contributes to hostility and depression, but
what about the hillbillies of the world?
If having “Friends in Low Places” and wish
ing on “Someone Else’s Star” aren’t enough to
make you want to go into a post office and
start firing away...
then WHAT
!S?
rromxm&fmoKn,
minimizing mme
should be priorities
LbbLhY OWUSU is a sophomore
broadcasting major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
So you have just read an argument against
censorship. It’s now my turn to discuss why
censorship is a good thing.
You have to remember that this is a pretty
sensitive topic, and giving a strong argument
for censorship is pretty tough, as many of you
may be against it. Some of you may not care
for censorship, and others may find this dis
cussion very interesting.
I generally feel that we should be free to
read, hear and view whatever we like because
we live in a liberal society. But there needs to
be some kind of regulation, or else we would
live in complete chaos.
I’m not going to bore you with all the rea
sons why we need censorship. Censorship
exists whether you like it or not.
I will base my argument on this simple
question: Is censorship a necessary evil?
Well, I believe that censorship is very nec
caaaiy, anu ccuauiMiip nui evil. ^eiisuiMiip
is very much a good thing.
Censorship is a very broad topic. We could
discuss this all day, but I’m going to take an
overall view on it, to keep it brief.
I think that we need to understand that we
live in a world that is full of individualism. We
are all very different. Certain lyrics in music
and films are disturbing to others. Certain
things do and do not apply to others. Certain
graphic material should not be exploited to
some groups like the elderly and, most impor
tantly, children.
There needs to be respect for these groups
in our society, and there needs to be regula
tion.
We need to consider moral values and
beliefs when discussing censorship.
Some people find the contents of films
and books to be offensive and in “bad taste.”
That is why the “self-proclaimed censors”
decide what we can and cannot see. The cen
sors have the power to examine material and
label it tasteful or unfit for publication.
'/#/$/'/, Some books and films are com
pletely removed from the shelf
because they are deemed as
inappropriate for
our eyes.
You may
disagree that
censors should
have the
authority to
do this, but it
simply is a
fact.
You’re
probably
thinking,
“What
gives
censors the
right to
|
ii pcupic me aiiuwcu iuu mum iiccuuiu,
many people will take ad\antage of exercising
this right.
The First Amendment does state that we
all have a freedom of speech and expression.
As an adult you can do whatever you like. But
imagine if we lived in a world where people
were allowed to walk the streets naked and
throw foul language around whenever we
wanted.
Students would be free to swear and cuss
at their professors, and young children could
do and say whatever they wanted. Drugs
would be legal, and there would be no need
for a government. There would be no control,
law or order. No one would have to respect
others. We would live in a world full of com
plete anarchy. How many of you could live in
a world like this? Probably few.
Would this be healthy and ethical? I don’t
think so.
I think television is among the most influ
ential mediums for needing censorship.
My biggest concern is about children.
Children are one of the most vulnerable
groups of people in our society, and they need
to be protected from certain materials. The
contents of certain materials are too explicit
for children. I’m not saying adults should hide
the secrets of life, but adults and parents —
should educate children in an appropriate
manner.
i ms aoesn t mean mat allowing cnnaren
to watch pornography will teach them about
sex. No. Young children need to understand
the importance of sexuality and sexual rela
tionships.
I remember when I was about 10 years old,
and I was flicking through the stations one
evening. I remember it was not very late. I
changed the station, and I saw two homosexu
al men having sex. I was in shock. I should not
have been allowed, at that age, to see that sort
of graphic material.
I changed the channel so fast. I knew it
was wrong to view this, not just because my
father was in the room, but because I was not
mature and ready to view such things.
I believe things like this, because of their
disturbing and offensive nature, need to be
censored from children. Many would regard
this as foul. It may be a natural activity
between some groups, but some individuals
do not need to be exposed to this.
These days, children learn so quickly, and
there is a need for regulation.
i uai is wuy we nave age group ratings ana
editing. The V-chip exists as a deterrent
against children seeing certain films.
Films like “Power Rangers” and “Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles” contain plenty of vio
lence, and often young children try to imitate
what they see. This is what many people
believe has helped influence the increase of
crime and violence among youths.
Children are killing children.
Look at the case of James Bulger, an inter
national story that strained the world. Two 10
year-old boys brutally murdered a 1-year-old
child. I hate to imagine what kind of back
ground these boys came from and what kind
of mentality possessed such young people to
commit such a crime.
Despite all the protection parents and
adults attempt to do in regulating certain
material, it perhaps still isn’t enough. Children
still manage to get hold of certain material.
We need to draw a line somewhere. We
need to minimize crime and violence through
censorship.
Censorship is very much necessary, as it
prevents the viewing of material that many
would regard as obscene and offensive.
Whether or not you and I agree with censor
ship, it exists for our own benefits.
Give the censors a break. They’re only try
ing to do their job - protecting us.
