Brian+M.+-+NHD+MEMO

Home

STUDENT NHD MEMOS

Essential Question: How much power should the government have over radio and music? The FCC's power should be restricted to matters of national security.

MEMO I: TOPIC PROPOSAL......................................................due Thursday, April 5th

**Part 1. Identify and explain the problem** created by a revolution. Organize your description in an extended power paragraph and cite evidence from two credible sources. Create an annotation for each source. Post the annotations at the bottom of this page. Annotated Bibliography Guide

**Part 2. Develop a research question** that customizes the essential questionto your topic. The question should raise a controversy or conflict.

**Part 3. Develop a thesis statement** that answers the research question by recommending how society should address this issue or problem.

MEMO 1&2:

We all have probably experienced the shock when your hear a song on the radio and all of the "obscene" words have been removed, either silenced or bleeped out. Whether you like it or not, all radio stations do it, and the FCC mandates it. Music has long been a popular and widespread form of art and expression, and has also long been "censored in an attempt to enforce morality" (LU). While the idea of moral censorship can seem like a noble one, sometimes conflicts in viewpoints can leave one or both parties unsatisfied with a censor decision. During the 1950s and 60s, difference in opinion between authority and youths about subjects like alcohol, drugs, and sex led to many musicians to challenge the social and moral norm. This challenge began "breaking down the traditional moral order in many aspects of society – especially music" (LU). The answer to this breakdown was the increase of censorship on radio and television. The practice has continued to modern times, with many musicians like MIA, Garth Brooks, and Miley Cyrus having their music recently censored (Billboard.com). The continued conflicts between musicians and censors has caused many people to rethink their ideology of 1st Amendment rights. Should a musician's work be under the same free speech protection as citizens? Or should it be considered commercial speech, which CAN be restricted? I believe that the censorship of music is just as unconstitutional as the censorship of a person's beliefs, and that all music should be allowed to play on radio and in public places without any lyrics being censored or removed.

MEMO 3:

The censorship of music really began with the advent of radio. With the creation of the Federal Communications Commission, no radio station could legally broadcast without a broadcasting license. This license system is an indirect form of censorship because the FCC has the right to "consider past programming performance when deciding whether to renew or revoke a broadcasting license" (Encyclopedia of Radio). This meant that a radio station's possible history of playing obscene music could be used as a reason to shut the station down. While the instances of the FCC actually shutting a station down have been few and far between, the idea that the government can use past behavior as a basis for regulation could be a serious threat to First Amendment rights. During the 1950s, radio stations began to receive criticism from listeners for playing indecent music. One radio station in Chicago, WABB chose to answer these criticisms by running editorials in newspapers claiming they would "promise that the station will censor itself of all controverisal music, especially rhythm and blues" (NKU). The solution was to ban 50 controversial songs that listeners had deemed indecent. Many of the musicians censored were black, which also threw racial tensions into the mix.

However, as popular music began to grow to a larger audience, simple banning of music was no longer going to "solve" the censors' problem. Modern musical censorship can be exemplified by the Parental Warning labels on albums with "strong language or references to sex, drugs, and violence" (P.A.S.). These labels were produced to combat the increase in explicit lyrics in popular music and the recent rise in teen violence. The labels signified that subject matter in the album was found to be explicit and was supposed to be a "helpful way for parents to determine what types of music are appropriate for their children" (P.A.S.). This move also came after a crucial group of Senate hearings on record labeling. During the hearings, many members of the Senate and political activists gave testimony, as well as musicians John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snider. The musicians' testimonies were centered mostly on rebutting statements made by pro-restriction activists and associates of the PMRC. Dee Snider's testimony especially was centered on showing the hypocracy and lies behind the PMRC agenda. He pointedly answered three false statements about his music and that of his band and denounced the statements as "irresponsible, damaging to [the band's] reputation, and slanderous" (GPO). After the labels were voluntarily accepted by the RIAA, one of the first artists to be "labeled" was Frank Zappa, the same man who testified in Congress against the issue, apparently for the word "Hell" in its title and the song "G-Spot Tornado", a completely instrumental song devoid of singing or lyrics. While the labels were supposed to restrict the sales of the explicit material, many artists reveled in the "outlaw status (and platinum sales) a [label] seemed to guarantee" (Vh1). The labels can be seen today in an ever-increasing number of albums and an ever-growing fan base for the explicit content, a fact which, to me signals the failure of the PRMC agenda.

MEMO 4:

While we may not be able to see it, we are completely surrounded by a sea of information being broadcasted by radio stations and the internet. Anyone with a radio or internet access can tap into this sea and receive news, music, and more; and anyone can put their own thoughts and ideas out into the sea for others to see and experience. This global thought pool has the potential to influence all of our lives and provide us with every bit of information we could need. So I believe that all of this information should be made available to everyone. I believe that all control of radio and the internet should be released. The FCC's license regulation abilities should be revised so that profanity and explicit content alone should not be grounds for revocation; the reasons should be for security and instances of slander and libel. Also, it should be completely up to the radio stations to decide what to broadcast and publish. Thirdly, all forms of censorship or profiling for CDs should be ceased. With my plan, the rights of radio stations are ensured, as are the rights of our nation's security and those of possible slander targets, including musicians targeted by Parental Advisory Labels.

MEMO 5:

One of the most common defenses given for censorship is protection of children; whether to keep them from being exposed to indecent ideas and thoughts, or to keep them from attempting to injure themselves and others because of music. While this is a noble goal, it is also an oft-used excuse to restrict rights and exercise power. One example of this is the PMRC; their goal was "to determine what types of music are appropriate for children" (P.A.S.). It is not the right of any government official or organization to decide what is best for children. It is the right of the parents of said children, and ONLY the parents. During the 1985 Senate hearings on record labeling, musician Dee Snider said, "it is my job as a parent to monitor what my children see, hear, and read during their preteen years. The full responsibility for this falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us" (GPO). Mr. Snider, being a parent himself, stated what hopefully all parents believe, that they are the monitors of their children, not a government watchdog group, and certainly not a group of well-to-do, misguided activists who believe their ideas should be the basis for everyone else's parenting strategy.

MEMO 6:

Another common defense for censorship is to claim that no censorship actually exists. This is the case with the FCC. The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (National Archives). Also, the Radio Act of 1927 stated that "Nothing in this act shall... give the [Federal Communications Commission (FCC)] the power of censorship over the radio communications... by any radio station" (Encyclopedia of Radio). However, in the early 1930s, "federal courts recognized the [FCC]'s right to consider past programming performance when deciding whether to renew or revoke a broadcasting license" (Encyclopedia of Radio). This meant that while no official censorship exists, the FCC has the right to revoke a broadcasting license if they decide that a radio station has broadcasted indecent material; it is not the willingness to only broadcast clean material that keeps the radio stations doing so, it is the fear of having their license revoked. More recently however, in 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "concluded that 'the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive'", and also stated that "the FCC's indecency ban 'violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague'" (The Freakin' FCC). This means that the FCC's grip on broadcasted material is starting to slip, and will hopefully soon be forced to let go.

MEMO 7:

Perhaps the most censored genres of music in recent times have been "Black Music"; ie. Rap and Hip Hop. Many people found the music to be offensive, either simply because it was produced by black people or because of many groups' sexually explicit and degrading lyrics. In 1990, Florida rap group 2 Live Crew made history when a Miami judge "found the rap group's [album] //As Nasty as They Wanna Be// obscene, making it the first musical recording to be so labeled by a U.S. court", further branding the album as "'an appeal to 'dirty' thoughts and the loins'" (Smith). This was a landmark case because this was the first time a U.S. court had decided that a group's music was too indecent and obscene to be allowed to be sold or even performed, which was an unconstitutional decision. Music is defined as "an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions" (Merriam Webster). This means that even if the ideas expressed are those of sexual acts and female degradation, and the emotions expressed are lustful, 2 Live Crew's album is still music. Also 2 Live Crew's lyrics, while sexual and lustful, "are at least harmless to the artistic consciousness" (Prisoner Exchange). The music might be offensive to some, but it is unlikely to incite violence; in fact, some of the songs, to me, seem almost good-natured and fun. This music is entertainment, and therefore still under the protection of the 1st Amendment as the free speech of a United States citizen.

MEMO 8:

In recent years, the FCC's grip on what is said on the radio and television is starting to weaken. On many channels that are not specifically kid channels, words like "damn", "ass", & "hell" are commonplace, appearing in nearly every new episode of some shows. Also, on radio the grip has waned as well, with many DJs voicing their own opinions, including words like "hell" & "damn". While this is definitely a step in the right direction, it is not enough. TV and radio need to be completely free, any word should be said, any opinion should be voiced, and any idea should be heard. The idea of censorship to keep children innocent is misguided; let me remind you that it is not the job of the government to restrict what children hear and experience, that job is solely on the shoulders of parents. Also, while many people do not recognize it, policing of radio stations and TV networks is censorship in its worst form, where the people are ignorant to its existence. And thirdly, usually when music is censored it is because the censors are only looking at who the artist is and what the lyrics are, and not at the positive aspect of the music. With my solution to this problem, the government has no censorship power, and the freedoms of the people are assured, especially the freedom of speech and press, and the freedom to criticize and question authority. Because after all, as the famous comedian, satirist, and social critic Lenny Bruce once said, "Take away the right to say 'fuck' and you take away the right to say 'fuck the government'".


 * ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY **

Landman, Gabriella. "Banned Music: 20 Artists Censors Tried To Silence." //Billboard.com//. Rovi Corp., 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. . This list is a secondary source published by Billboard.com. In it, there is a list of musicians that have had music banned and reasons for their censorship. This source was used because it gives a recent history of musical banning and censorship and can direct me to find statements by the banned artists.  "Music Censorship." //Lehigh.edu//. Lehigh U., 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. <http://www.lehigh.edu/~infirst/musiccensorship.html>. This Web article is a secondary source written by R. Andre Hall, a former Journalism student at Lehigh University. In it, Hall shows and summarizes many of the reasons for musical censorship, like morality, racism, and value gaps between generations. This source is being used for this project because it gives background knowledge on the basis for musical censorship. <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">Murray, Matthew. "Censorship."//Encyclopedia of Radio//. Ed. Christopher H. Sterling and Michael C. Keith. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, n.d. 306-9. Print. Encyclopedia of Radio. This entry is a secondary source in the Encyclopedia of Radio. The history of early radio censorship is provided and it discusses the emergence of self-censorship by radio stations in the 1930s. I am using this source to support my history of radio censorship. "Music Censorship Timeline." //Northern Kentucky University//. Northern Kentucky U, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nku.edu>. This timeline is a secondary source published by Northern Kentucky University. The timeline gives a history of significant events of censorship in the U.S. starting in 1955 and through the present. I am using this source because it gives specific instances of censorship and gives brief reasons for said censorship. <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">"Parental Advisory System."//Issues: Understanding Conflict in Society//. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://issues.abc-clio.com>. This article is a secondary source published by ABC-CLIO. In it, the history of Parental Advisory labels and the criteria for labeling is provided. I am using this source because Parental Advisory Labels are a large part of the censorship of music. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">Denver, John, et al. Testimony by Musicians about the unfair practice of Record Labeling. United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, And Transportation. 19 Sept. 1985. //Government Printing Office//. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://www.gpo.gov>. This testimony transcript is a primary source released by the U.S. Government Printing Office. The testimonies are by individuals associated with the Music Industry in the 1980s about the possible mandating of Parental Advisory Labels and accusations by activist groups directed toward musicians. I am using this source because it is an actual transcript showing the opinions of both Senators and members of the Music Industry. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">"The History of the PRMC." //Vh1.com//. Vh1, 2008. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://www.vh1.com>. This article is a secondary source published by Vh1. It provides a history of the Parent's Music Resource Center and the history of its opposition. I am using this source because it outlines the history of the PMRC. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">Congress. "First Amendment." // Bill of Rights //. Washington, D.C., 1789. // National //// Archives //. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://www.archives.gov/>. The Bill of Rights is a primary source published by Congress. It is a list of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which deal with freedoms of the people. I am using this source to provide a clear view of exactly what the rights of U.S. citizens are. <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">Sullum, Jacob. "The Freakin' FCC." //Reason// Apr. 2012: 8. //Academic Search Premier//. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://www.web.ebscohost.com>. This article is a secondary source published by Reason Magazine. In it, the author, Jacob Sullum, gives his views on FCC radio censorship and how it affects his parenting. I am using this source because it provides an expert opinion on how radio censorship affects parenting. <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">Smith, Ethan. "As Obscene as They Wanna Be?" //Entertainment Weekly// 2 June 1995: 68. //MAS Ultra - School Edition//. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com/>. This article is a secondary source published by Entertainment Weekly magazine. In it, the author, Ethan Smith, gives the history of the pivotal censorship case with Florida rap group 2 Live Crew. I am using this source because this case is very important to the censorship issue. <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">"Music." Def. 1. //Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary//. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://dictionary.reference.com/>. This dictionary entry is a secondary source published by Merriam-Webster. The entry defines "Music". I am using this source because the definition of music is key to the music censorship issue. <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"> <span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff9e5; display: block; font-family: Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left;">Bowman, James. "Prisoner Exchange." //Reason// Jan. 1991: n. pag. //Biography// //Reference// //Bank//. Web. 2 May 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com/>. This article is a secondary source published by Reason Magazine. In it, the author, James Bowman, gives his opinion on the then-recent issues dealing with censorship, the cases of 2 Live Crew and Jenny Holzer. I am using this source because it shows the context of the issue at the time it was occurring.